What Individualism Is Not • Frank Chodorov

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

Yes, monopolies are what I truly fear in an open market economy... There is a fine line that must be walked to avoid them and it is tough to maintain it. With Engel's Law, I remember talking about it in my Macroeconomics class, but I guess I didn't fully remember what it was and posted it way too quickly. It is a neat concept though, but it has to do with income and demand rather than supply and price.

The free market argument against an exploitative monopoly is that; whenever a company demands a higher than fair price, other companies have an opportunity to start up in that market because the high prices offer high profits, and the new companies need only charge less or provide better service to receive assured profits.

A good monopoly respects virtual competition, where a single company that supplies an entire market maintains fair prices in order to keep out new competitors.

This is my understanding as well. In every example of the manifestation of monopoly prices I have found that the entity in question was operating with official sanction as an authorized state sponsored monopoly.

In the absence of the support of the threat of state violence, monopoly prices are self defeating.

The original definition of monopoly dates back to the age of Mercantilism, when it meant "permission to engage in business by the government". At that time, there were often direct taxes involved and getting permission by the government usually meant the requirement or ability (depending on how you look at it) to collect taxes.

Funny you should bring up being able to act as an agent for the state in collecting taxes, something that was eventually achieved down to the last 'mom and pop' small business in the form of withholdings even though the practice was initially verboten.

For a tax code which purports to be 'progressive', it is astonishing to see how little uproar there is against the systematic confiscation of vital resources from the poorest people.

Milton Friedman had a thought experiment that I always liked where he explained that if all of the taxes collected were simply redistributed back evenly among all citizens, the actual individual monetary benefit would far exceed the benefits of the few who currently qualify and receive aid.

Government wastes 85% or more of everything it confiscates.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: greencmp

What does laissez faire free market capitalism say the nature of law should be, or no laws at all? How does the nature of law be born of and related to and exist beneficially with laissez faire free market capitalism? Does law and the nature of law come into existence via free market commerce?

The wikipedia article for Laissez-faire is actually pretty good.

Laissez- faire is perfect for the animals and nature, but ever since Man began agreeing to knowledge of good and evil, there was Law. Man creates law. Law is not birthed solely from economic activity, there must be intellectual planning. This is the birth of law and government. Ok, we have Laissez- faire capitalism in your ideal world and ideal nation, is there government, is there law? If so, describe it a bit.

originally posted by: stormson
1. Humans are herd animals. Humans alone die. Why do u think we formed tribes, then cities and govs?

Cities formed from specialization of labor. City dwellers had to provide some sort of economic trade good in order to buy food. The advancing of technology enabled the growth of cities.

Modern governments formed as a bargain between the ruler and the population to minimize the power of the landed knightly aristocracy. Gunpowder made any bunch of peasants equal to a knight. The King needed only money to buy the guns for the commoners and the knight was obsolete. By about 1500 the modern trend toward centralized states had begun, fueled by taxes and massed citizen soldiers.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: greencmp

What does laissez faire free market capitalism say the nature of law should be, or no laws at all? How does the nature of law be born of and related to and exist beneficially with laissez faire free market capitalism? Does law and the nature of law come into existence via free market commerce?

The wikipedia article for Laissez-faire is actually pretty good.

Laissez- faire is perfect for the animals and nature, but ever since Man began agreeing to knowledge of good and evil, there was Law. Man creates law. Law is not birthed solely from economic activity, there must be intellectual planning. This is the birth of law and government. Ok, we have Laissez- faire capitalism in your ideal world and ideal nation, is there government, is there law? If so, describe it a bit.

We would still have law and order. As you say, all this economic activity is just that, day to day business to acquire a sufficient supply of fungible currency for the purposes of satisfying wants and needs. Anything beyond that is reinvested potentially causing growth.

It is a very good question, we certainly should not carry the current docket.

We can start with our Constitution, common law and the Magna Carta Libertatum.

I always liked the idea of forcing congress to read aloud every legislation from the beginning and voting them up or (preferably) down.

At the very least it would keep them busy for a while and not so concentrated on extinguishing their (taxpaying) constituencies from existence.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: greencmp

What does laissez faire free market capitalism say the nature of law should be, or no laws at all? How does the nature of law be born of and related to and exist beneficially with laissez faire free market capitalism? Does law and the nature of law come into existence via free market commerce?

The wikipedia article for Laissez-faire is actually pretty good.

Laissez- faire is perfect for the animals and nature, but ever since Man began agreeing to knowledge of good and evil, there was Law. Man creates law. Law is not birthed solely from economic activity, there must be intellectual planning. This is the birth of law and government. Ok, we have Laissez- faire capitalism in your ideal world and ideal nation, is there government, is there law? If so, describe it a bit.

Good law is simply a description of the habits and customs of a society. Good law follows the voluntary behavior of the multitude of citizens living their lives. In that way laws are not blindly restrictive or accidentally unfair.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Boadicea

No, and the COTUS ensures that there will never be a completely free market either.

Technically, very true. However, the purpose of the commerce clause was to protect and ensure free trade among the states, and otherwise protect and ensure a level playing field for both consumers and businesses. It is not "free trade" if states can impose different standards or regulations for different states. Likewise, it is not "free trade" if a business misrepresents its products or services so I am not "free" to make informed choices with the facts -- not lies.

The Federal government is given power to adjudicate trade between the states to make sure they play fair between themselves. That right there means there will be some level of market interference.

Perhaps this is just semantics, but while regulation is necessary to ensure all parties know and adhere to the same rules, there should be no adjudication of trade between states, because all states should be on the same level playing fields. Only violation of those equal standards would need adjudication.

This is the real truth of the matter. For now, we can pack up our cars and boogie to the state next door.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that that non-political but enormously economically effective recourse to bloated government may be at risk of being taken away.

On the free trade side, I simply do not understand how free and open exchange could possibly require anything but the rescinding of existing tariffs. What the hell is in these FTA things? It really can't be anything good.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

My first thought is pretty simple on this and it is just that people mature.

Children develop through various degrees of dependence and defiance, rebellion and compliance. Adults appear to be no different.

Would any of you try to tell me that your lives are currently being directed by advertising?

Yes indeed. SOME people DO mature. However, others may not. The degree of balance between those states you mention, defiance, rebellion and compliance guide maturing. To much of one, arrests our development. Many people are to defiant while others may be to compliant. But the point of my post was to point out that when we do not know we are being coerced we do not learn to defy it.

You ask 'Would any of you try to tell me that your lives are currently being directed by advertising?'. That is also my point. Just who would admit that they are being directed by advertising? No, we all want to show that we are adult, that we are independent citizens, mature individuals.

The advertising industry is huge. HUGE, and they employ people with deep knowledge of human behavior, what buttons to push, what strings to pull, the most in depth scientific understanding of the human psyche. They craft commercials to the n'th degree to slither into our minds and guide us to purchase. And to a high degree without our conscious agreement. They seek to reach us on an unconscious level. Our conscious minds in many cases will not recognize our unconscious manipulation.

Not that I am conceding anything here but...

Vacuum creator Dyson invests $15m in technology that may double smartphone battery life

This would seem to support your point.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Bluesma

What it sounds like the French have is a strong degree of Nationalism. I'll bet they take pride in France and being French and that in part expresses itself in their choice to patronize French artisans and French goods and services.

Hm.... trruuuuee...but (I may be mistaken here) but in reading what you wrote, I sense a slight subtle difference in what you mean, and what I observe. They don't buy french products simply out of nationalistic urge. That is blind.
They do it precisely because they are thinking- the taxes I am paying will come back to me. They will go towards helping my neighbor, my brother. Not making an entity (which is actually a corporation) rich. The rich corporate entity doesn't need help, in their mind. People do. People get sick and need medical care, people get pregnant, injured, have trouble finding a job that is enough to live on....and they don't see it "some people" do and "some people" don't- EVERYONE gets sick or has troubles of this sort.

They don't consider sickness or financial struggles a result of the individuals choices, they consider that an inescapable part of being a physical being. They perceive that there is a limit to the power of the individual consciousness, that exists, whether one wishes to acknowledge it or not, not put in place by the governing power of a society, but by the very fact of being a biological entity.

You can't replicate that in America very well these days because our children are raised to believe that American is a bad nation that has raped the rest of the world and it is wrong to be too proud to be American or take too much pride in anything American. So tell me why that would foster and strong nationalistic need to go out and seek and buy uniquely American products?

I often speak out strongly on the America bashing that I see mostly only Americans doing! The "everyone hates us" illusion (which co-exists with the "everyone worships us" illusion). I think you are right, the attempt at egotistical pride tends to be unstable, and causes extreme bouts of arrogance and grandeur, interspaced with extreme bouts of self hatred and shame.
I think that experiment has shown to be a fail.
The "me" first concerns have a limit to to their efficacy in almost all areas. Identifying with others, instead of competing with others, might be more effective there?

Also explain to me where raising a generation to have a strong degree of nationalistic pride and identity is different from advertising? In one you are fostering pride in a national brand while the other fosters an interest in corporate brand.

Well, I kind of answered this above- I don't think it is "pride" that is fostered here and I don't suggest it should be there (I think that is already tried). One of the problems I observed growing up in America is that the focus on individualism is self destructive in a sense.
"Don't follow the crowd, don't be sheep, do your own thing, refuse to conform to the norm" ends up making any such attempts split people far apart anyway. (thus you get the earlier mentioned extremes).

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Except it doesn't work like that in practice. How can a new business start up if the monopoly controls the entire flow of production for that product? The new company would have to buy from the monopoly just to make their product. This will raise the prise of the new business' product above the monopoly price.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Except it doesn't work like that in practice. How can a new business start up if the monopoly controls the entire flow of production for that product? The new company would have to buy from the monopoly just to make their product. This will raise the prise of the new business' product above the monopoly price.

A free market monopoly can only control a flow by buying its products. Any competitor can bid away the monopoly's supply chain, which would still be profitable if the monopoly was charging higher than normal prices.

originally posted by: Bluesma
"Don't follow the crowd, don't be sheep, do your own thing, refuse to conform to the norm"

I tend to think that our tradition of encouraging the rebellious, celebrating the autodidact and preferring the problem solver is indispensable to what we think of as the "American" way.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Bluesma
"Don't follow the crowd, don't be sheep, do your own thing, refuse to conform to the norm"

I tend to think that our tradition of encouraging the rebellious, celebrating the autodidact and preferring the problem solver is indispensable to what we think of as the "American" way.

Agreed. Our Culture was built upon this. Which explains why people who were once made to stand up and repeat the pledge of allegiance as a child would grow up to speak against the USA instead.

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Bluesma
"Don't follow the crowd, don't be sheep, do your own thing, refuse to conform to the norm"

I tend to think that our tradition of encouraging the rebellious, celebrating the autodidact and preferring the problem solver is indispensable to what we think of as the "American" way.

Agreed. Our Culture was built upon this. Which explains why people who were once made to stand up and repeat the pledge of allegiance as a child would grow up to speak against the USA instead.

You make it sound like conscientious objection is somehow unpatriotic or that informed dissent is something other than productive for society.

a reply to: greencmp

I think that the only thing we all have in common is our desire to reject our own nation, because it symbolizes "the crowd" "the collective" or the "herd". The only way to be a valuable member of this club, is to reject it. Hence, we are watching the fall of a nation in process because a people turned against itself, is bound to fall. Lack of cohesion means weakness.

originally posted by: Bluesma
a reply to: greencmp

I think that the only thing we all have in common is our desire to reject our own nation, because it symbolizes "the crowd" "the collective" or the "herd". The only way to be a valuable member of this club, is to reject it. Hence, we are watching the fall of a nation in process because a people turned against itself, is bound to fall. Lack of cohesion means weakness.

I would argue that the fall of our nation, if it can be said to be conclusively underway, is the result of disunion and blatant strong-arm forceful coercion of the unconstitutional kind coming from the motive powers of government expansion (i.e. - the Democrats and socialists).

While the republicans are responsible for allowing it to happen on their watch, I wouldn't go so far as to give them equal credit for our resulting state induced mayhem.

As I have said before, it is the fact that we anticipate unlawful and overreaching government as an inevitability that allowed us to form a protocol for the impeachment or removal of corrupt 'public servants' as part of the fabric of our constitution.

originally posted by: greencmp



I would argue that the fall of our nation, if it can be said to be conclusively underway, is the result of disunion and blatant strong-arm forceful coercion of the unconstitutional kind coming from the motive powers of government expansion (i.e. - the Democrats and socialists).

While the republicans are responsible for allowing it to happen on their watch, I wouldn't go so far as to give them equal credit for our resulting state induced mayhem..

There is some last ditch efforts to bring everyone together happening- and they may seem overbearing because they are trying to act in a sort of emergency, within a situation that has gotten dangerously extreme.
If you watch someone trying to do CPR on a person whose heart it stopping, it looks pretty violent too.

I don't want to blame Republicans- the value on individuality and rejection of socialization is what our country was founded on, and has run on that through both Democrats and Republicans. It was started by Expat's/immigrants who motivated each other to stake out a space in the wilderness and provide and defend for themselves. It was appropriate once, when the dreaded "herd" was across the ocean.

Now we've got big cities, filled with people who don't have their own crops and livestock, and didn't dig their own wells, and have TV's and billboards filling their subconscious; now, the self-made man is replaced by the rich-born man, just like the nobles of the old herd. Europe was ahead of us in history, and now we are like the rebellious son or daughter that grows up and finds out "I've become my father/mother" !


The Democrats are not your enemy- they are your native countrymen. You have bigger enemies outside, and would do well to link together...

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: greencmp



I would argue that the fall of our nation, if it can be said to be conclusively underway, is the result of disunion and blatant strong-arm forceful coercion of the unconstitutional kind coming from the motive powers of government expansion (i.e. - the Democrats and socialists).

While the republicans are responsible for allowing it to happen on their watch, I wouldn't go so far as to give them equal credit for our resulting state induced mayhem..

There is some last ditch efforts to bring everyone together happening- and they may seem overbearing because they are trying to act in a sort of emergency, within a situation that has gotten dangerously extreme.
If you watch someone trying to do CPR on a person whose heart it stopping, it looks pretty violent too.

I don't want to blame Republicans- the value on individuality and rejection of socialization is what our country was founded on, and has run on that through both Democrats and Republicans. It was started by Expat's/immigrants who motivated each other to stake out a space in the wilderness and provide and defend for themselves. It was appropriate once, when the dreaded "herd" was across the ocean.

Now we've got big cities, filled with people who don't have their own crops and livestock, and didn't dig their own wells, and have TV's and billboards filling their subconscious; now, the self-made man is replaced by the rich-born man, just like the nobles of the old herd. Europe was ahead of us in history, and now we are like the rebellious son or daughter that grows up and finds out "I've become my father/mother" !


The Democrats are not your enemy- they are your native countrymen. You have bigger enemies outside, and would do well to link together...

You do not have to agree with my position to recognize it. I can't help but get the impression that you are intentionally misunderstanding me. I think government itself is the problem, not the solution. The best way to reduce that known threat is to keep it to a bear minimum, preferably in a ceremonial capacity and as a philosophical check against interventionist fashion.

I am saying that government interference has resulted in widespread failure which you say requires more invasive interference to resolve. I am specifically saying that it is the damage that has been caused by the government that you recommend which must wane in order for freedom to reassert itself and freedom begets prosperity.

'Society' has bigger concerns than the early maturation process of impudent adolescents or the questionable diet of your neighbor. That is the responsibility of their family and friends, not the state.

I am more than willing to swing wide the barn doors but, I no longer believe in intellectual compromise as it is simply halfway between freedom and subjugation. There is no reason to lament the loss of the gigantic and terribly destructive nanny state.

originally posted by: greencmp

The best way to reduce that known threat is to keep it to a bear minimum, preferably in a ceremonial capacity and as a philosophical check against interventionist fashion.

I am saying that government interference has resulted in widespread failure which you say requires more invasive interference to resolve. I am specifically saying that it is the damage that has been caused by the government that you recommend which must wane in order for freedom to reassert itself and freedom begets prosperity.

I said invasive interference by the government is needed??? Please refer me to where I said that???
It is not what I said, nor meant, nor feel!!!

I said I feel the people need to think about their values that they have been conditioned and fed, and consider whether they are necessary or beneficial to them as a collective! I purposely pointed out that I think a capitalist economy can exist with a social culture- simultaneously. A free market, but with people who feel solidarity and care about each other, instead of "each man for himself" mentality.

As it is, the government is a puppet for big corporations, because the people didn't want to keep it as their own, so giving it anymore power at this time is just falling further into self destruction. A cultural change is needed , in my opinion. Meaning- people talking to each other, people becoming more aware of each other and their interdependence.

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: greencmp

The best way to reduce that known threat is to keep it to a bear minimum, preferably in a ceremonial capacity and as a philosophical check against interventionist fashion.

I am saying that government interference has resulted in widespread failure which you say requires more invasive interference to resolve. I am specifically saying that it is the damage that has been caused by the government that you recommend which must wane in order for freedom to reassert itself and freedom begets prosperity.

I said invasive interference by the government is needed??? Please refer me to where I said that???
It is not what I said, nor meant, nor feel!!!

I said I feel the people need to think about their values that they have been conditioned and fed, and consider whether they are necessary or beneficial to them as a collective! I purposely pointed out that I think a capitalist economy can exist with a social culture- simultaneously. A free market, but with people who feel solidarity and care about each other, instead of "each man for himself" mentality.

As it is, the government is a puppet for big corporations, because the people didn't want to keep it as their own, so giving it anymore power at this time is just falling further into self destruction. A cultural change is needed , in my opinion. Meaning- people talking to each other, people becoming more aware of each other and their interdependence.

There is some last ditch efforts to bring everyone together happening- and they may seem overbearing because they are trying to act in a sort of emergency, within a situation that has gotten dangerously extreme.
If you watch someone trying to do CPR on a person whose heart it stopping, it looks pretty violent too.

I gleaned that from this paragraph, that things are dangerous and therefore, something must be done. That something is always the use of coercive state force.

I propose the opposite, we should actively disassemble the mechanisms which are used to establish and maintain anticompetitive legislation and practices. We have been trying it your way this whole time, can we try my may now?

originally posted by: greencmp
There is some last ditch efforts to bring everyone together happening- and they may seem overbearing because they are trying to act in a sort of emergency, within a situation that has gotten dangerously extreme.
If you watch someone trying to do CPR on a person whose heart it stopping, it looks pretty violent too.


I gleaned that from this paragraph, that things are dangerous and therefore, something must be done. That something is always the use of coercive state force.

You misinterpretted. I did not say I was supportive of those efforts- for example I have always been against the Obamacare monstrosity, and laws about what people can eat, etc. I simply said, they are attempts at saving a drowning ship- the intent starts in a good place, but is going to fail, because it attempts to put issues of social mores into the hands of government.

-I am "for" the people gaining some value upon "peer pressure" as a force that can be beneficial, helpful to the individual, and remain in the hands of the people- not the official powers.

-I am for people opening their minds to the idea that they can't control everything in their life alone, no matter how much positive thinking, hard working, or good eating they do, crap happens- to everyone. It is not necessarily evidence of bad conscious choices.

-I am "for" people ending this republican/democrat, christian/non-christian, black/white, poor/rich, giver/taker, good/bad, sort of thinking driving the ways Americans look at each other.

-I am "for" the increase in thinking of the U.S. as "US" instead of "me" (and those that agree with me, to an extent).

-I am "for" less concern with materialism, consumerism, objectivism, and individuality,
and more concern for relativity, social bonds, emotions, and physical well being.

Basically, I am for a little less ego and pride, and a little more humility and solidarity.

We have been trying it your way this whole time, can we try my may now?

I don't think we have been trying things this way.

I think most of us grew up hearing "peer pressure" is a bad thing and never to be listened to or followed.
I think most of us were told standing out from the crowd is the ultimate goal in life, and we can do anything we put our mind to, and if we don't get there it is our fault for not trying hard enough.
I think we were told that attaining material abundance will prove we are not only intelligent and strong willed, but ethically and morally superior.
I think we were taught that relationships are about material exchange of goods-( sex, and money) and human beings are commodities who lose or gain value on the market.

Oh yeah... and as we follow all this, we bleat, "I am an individualist, I don't follow what anyone else tells me to do!"
And the herders giggle behind us....