The Fallacy of Collectivism - Ludwig von Mises

crimvelvet
reply to post by greencmp

 

....So, as long as you aren't saying that the state is capable of being dependable and trustworthy, we are all in agreement except for Pejeu who insists that no one but the state can be trusted to control all aspects of society. He just doesn't understand that the state is always composed of the same humans which he does not trust (or he recognizes that fact and fully intends to be one of those untrustworthy humans in control).

The older I get the less I trust the state. Nasty Stuff an individual would not think of doing when it is his bare face in view becomes easy when hiding in a crowd. It is even easier when hiding behind the Color of the Law.

Socialists seem to come in a selection of flavors.

Some genuinely care for people.
Some see it as justification for being lazy and stealing from the 'rich'
Some use it to justify their government/academic jobs
Others see it as a means to power and wealth.

It is the last bunch who are dangerous and use the others to boost themselves into power.


The website Pejue linked to is hilarious.

They try to link Murray Rothbard, of all people as well as Gary North, Mises, Ron Paul and libertarians in general to the Rothschilds and Rockefellers!
thedailyknell.wordpress.com...


On a more interesting note:

A finding in a study on the relationship between science literacy and political ideology surprised the Yale professor behind it: Tea party members know more science than non-tea partiers.

Yale law professor Dan Kahan posted on his blog this week that he analyzed the responses of a set of more than 2,000 American adults recruited for another study and found that, on average, people who leaned liberal were more science literate than those who leaned conservative.
www.culturalcognition.net...


However, those who identified as part of the tea party movement were actually better versed in science than those who didn’t, Kahan found. The findings met the conventional threshold of statistical significance, the professor said.
Kahan wrote that not only did the findings surprise him, they embarrassed him.

“I’ve got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected I’d be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the Tea Party and science comprehension,” Kahan wrote.
politi.co...

It is an age/experience thing though, there are some young'uns who reach the inevitable conclusion earlier in life for a variety of reasons.

I started a thread on Bastiat's "The Law" which is a succinct synopsis on the subject of legal plunder which is the heart and soul of socialism.

The Law - To Plunder or Not To Plunder - The Choice Before Us - Frédéric Bastiat

reply to post by BardingTheBard

BardingTheBard
...The truth never stopped being the truth... has never been under attack or threat from ceasing to be the truth... and over time... asserts itself quite well all on its own. Thus why the statement that the truth doesn't need as much defending as lies is... well... true.

Lies require constant maintenance and always build a structure that ultimately collapses under their own weight. Truth sits around eroding lies without exerting any effort at all...

crimvelvet
I disagree. Humans hardly ever know the truth. It is the winners who write history and that is what becomes "Truth"

We don't really disagree. I'll try a different method.

There are two cups and one ball. One person places the ball in a cup and another person observes. The third and final person can only listen to both.

The person holding the ball says "I'm placing the ball in Cup B" while placing it in A. The observer says "No, you put it in cup A". The listener now has to choose which cup they think the ball is in and they can ask either person any question they like... they just can't see the cups.

Now... the TRUTH that the ball is in Cup A is NEVER under threat. It continues to be true from the moment the ball was placed until something changes the state of the cup and ball. Just by the very nature of the ball actually truly being in cup A... means that every attempt to test the premise the ball is in cup B erodes any lies attempting to sustain a belief that the ball is in cup B.

Thus why lies require constant sustaining (and new "fools" to be born every minute)... and though while WE may be in danger of action on lies, etc. the truth itself is never in danger. WE are in danger, as you correctly observe, of creating an illusion which we mistake for the truth... but our illusion never ever becomes "the truth". At *worst* the illusion is believed until nobody tells the story anymore and rather than that illusion continuing to be "true" it just fades away as if it never existed. Because in the world of truth it never did. Only our true *actions* to untrue *beliefs*.

The truth is always true and eventually either continues to be true when the lies fade in vapor or shattered in a head on collision with the truth.

So yes, humans can weave stories to blind themselves from the truth, but that never puts the truth under threat or in need of defending. Only humans and those we come into contact with are under threat or need defending when that happens. The truth continues to be true whether it's eventually discovered or the lies are eventually forgotten.

There is an important distinction between "defending the truth" versus eroding lies.

BardingTheBard
reply to post by BardingTheBard

 

The truth is always true and eventually either continues to be true when the lies fade in vapor or shattered in a head on collision with the truth.

So yes, humans can weave stories to blind themselves from the truth, but that never puts the truth under threat or in need of defending. Only humans and those we come into contact with are under threat or need defending when that happens. The truth continues to be true whether it's eventually discovered or the lies are eventually forgotten.

There is an important distinction between "defending the truth" versus eroding lies.

edit on 3-11-2013 by BardingTheBard because: (no reason given)

Well said though, I would add that remembering the lies and mistakes are at least (if not more) as important as any logically concludable truth.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

-George Santayana

reply to post by Pejeu


You know...I tried following all of your points throughout this thread, and, although you make a few good ones, you are simply trapping yourself into a corner on others.
Perhaps I am missing something here...Please elaborate...

State ownership of the means of production is by far the most efficient and is inevitably what the future has in store for us, if we survive that long as a species.
When only one or two concerns or conglomerates such as GM or VW are left what is the point of letting them be private any more? So they can organize themselves into a cartel or merge into a single, global car manufacturer?
Or simply nationalize their production facilities (I'm guessing and hoping that, by then, we will have evolved enough to adopt a one world government) and only split up their design and engineering facilities and make them compete with and through their designs?

That works in a "perfect world"...What would motivate the "world government" that owned the means of production for cars to give me better cars than the "global car conglomerate" ? (given the track record of unchallenged ruling bodies, it would probably advocate spending on a repressive apparatus, not on R&D in the auto industry).
In either scenario the consumer would lose.

But...like I said, maybe I am missing something. Do tell.

NavyDoc

greencmp
reply to post by Pejeu

 

You are all over the place. Besides your misunderstanding, you are cross pollinating your justifications and accusations. This is normal for a dissembling narrative.

100% blather and repetition.

He doesn't even understand how the money supply is created. Banks perform a valuable service in that they provide capital for investment and expansion and a means to transfer and store funds. Without the advent of reliable banking systems, there would have been no economic boom in the renaissance, industrial revolution, nor technological revolution.

I agree with Jefferson that banking and governance should not mix, but to say that banks and banking are inherently evil is stupid and flies in the face of history.

Even though he words his argument so "masterfully tactful" he is correct...all that banks end up doing through FRB is letting the borrower spend money they do not own at a rate far higher than what the banks have, backed by deposits, in effect adding more currency in circulation against the borrower's future earnings...what if I (the borrower) die ? or default ?

I agree with Pejeu here, not only because history has proved him right, but because we see the effects of that monetary policy in the mountain of debt we are getting ourselves into, and yet the banking industry exhibits no concern whatsoever by curbing the amount of credit extended for consumer goods...Sorry doc, but the point goes to the "socialist" on this one....

Furthermore I wouldn't credit modern banking for economic boom or industrial revolution...not by a long shot.

Wingo
That works in a "perfect world"...What would motivate the "world government" that owned the means of production for cars to give me better cars than the "global car conglomerate" ? (given the track record of unchallenged ruling bodies, it would probably advocate spending on a repressive apparatus, not on R&D in the auto industry).
In either scenario the consumer would lose.

But...like I said, maybe I am missing something. Do tell.

You might be right on this one. I might be wrong on this one.

However, please consider the fact that it's been centuries since we've had economies where money issuance was not entirely or almost entirely privatised. That is to say, since we didn't have any banks.

A state central bank is a contradiction in terms. Why would the state need to loan itself money at interest, which it prints with no backing in any corporal asset whatsoever, through the mediation of private banks, no less?

Both true capitalism and true socialism have as prerequisite the lack of a banking sector altogether.

And either a fixed money supply (perhaps infinitely subdivisible) or government (treasury) issued currency that is spent into circulation rather than loaned at interest.

We don't need a money supply that grows with the economy.

We need a money supply whose resolution (ration between total money supply and its smallest curreny subdivision) grows with the economy.

Banking is just a private means of arbitrary and covert redistribution by private parties for private gain at undisclosed public expense.

Banking is socialism for the rich. It's socialism for profit. An unholy marriage between capitalism and socialism.

Anyways, the reason I think government made cars would be better is because of the lack of a private motive.

But I have said repeatedly that I support competition in research, development and design.

Just not in production. Only the best design or combination of designs and features from disparate designs should be put into production.

There should be only one model (let alone make) of consumer good per type and price tier for that good.

So only one model of digital camera that costs $300 to make, only one model of digital camera that costs $500 to make etc.

Only one model of car that costs $15,000 to make, only one model of car that costs $25,000 and so on.

I do support public elections and polling as to what the final design of car to be built for the 15k or 25k price tier should. But only from people who've already committed the money on pre-orders.

People who don't have their chosen design win get their money back in full and their orders cancelled, if they desire to cancel them - of course.

Then the model that is the only one produced for that price range for the following 7 or 8 years. Unless significant safety or technological improvements are made possible before that.

You would know that for price point you're getting the very best car or digital camera you can. With multilink, fully independent rear suspension instead of torsion beam and trailing arm or liveaxle, with rear break disks instead of brake drums etc.

But I'm digressing.

Besides the lack of a profit motive for the people involved in production, if not design, I can offer you no other argument or explanation.

Wingo
inherently evil is stupid and flies in the face of history.

Even though he words his argument so "masterfully tactful" he is correct...all that banks end up doing through FRB is letting the borrower spend money they do not own at a rate far higher than what the banks have, backed by deposits, in effect adding more currency in circulation against the borrower's future earnings...what if I (the borrower) die ? or default ?

What if you don't?

Is ten pizzas of which 9 are promissory in nature, to be delivered over an indeterminate period of time, the same as ten physical pizzas now, delivered or deliverable now or in quite short order?

Of course not.

Thanks to banking you get to consume now and put off production for later.

Why?

Because every bank loan is new money being issued?

Why?

Because the manufacturing, agricultural, engineering and other actually productive sectors of the economy simply can no longer employ enough people.

And without creditory expansion of the money supply the capitalist economy would not afford to consume its own production.

Even with a service sector catering to the rich, the owners of the means of production.

Yet interest bearing credit expansion can only postpone the inevitable reckoning so far.

An artificially inflated, bogus/useless jobs sector can only stretch so far.

If anyone in the private sector ought to be issuing money it ought to be the producers in the economy. The ones that produce the real wealth. Against their unsold production or expected, short term production.

Not the banks. Which produce absolutely no real wealth at all. They only arbitrarily and covertly redistribute real wealth (by covertly and arbitrarily distributing purchasing power) of others and consume real wealth.

Which ought to be the prerogative of solely the elected government.

Otherwise it's just legalised fraud and/or money counterfeiting, taxation without representation, active notification or disclosure by private parties for their own, private gain.

We need a guaranteed basic income if capitalism is to survive.

And we will live to see it come to pass, whether the obtuse right wing masses understand and acknowledge the need for it or not.

Either that or a global reset of all or a sizeable chunk of consumer debt.

Which would only be another postponement of the inevitable reckoning.

reply to post by Pejeu

please consider the fact that it's been centuries since we've had economies where money issuance was not entirely or almost entirely privatised. That is to say, since we didn't have any banks. A state central bank is a contradiction in terms. Why would the state need to loan itself money at interest, which it prints with no backing in any corporal asset whatsoever, through the mediation of private banks, no less?

I agree with the initial statement, however, I would postulate that in a way money supply has always been private business, whether banks existed or not. I believe we can agree that even when a pharaoh, king, emperor issued currency (minted coins), is still to be considered a case of private money supply. And while I agree that banks are contributing to the problem, it is my belief that the actual root of the said problem lies with the relation between people and currency of all sorts. Eliminating banks would only eliminate a few cancerous cells. Re-thinking currency may be the cure.
State central banks do NOT exist...period. They may be painted as a "state authority over the money/banking sector", but ultimately they are private regulators and money suppliers to the economy (with the inflationary consequences this concept entails). Yes, they SHOULD BE abolished, but only if a different currency system is to be implemented.

We need a money supply whose resolution (ration between total money supply and its smallest currency subdivision) grows with the economy.

I saw this before in one of your posts...Don't know if I fully comprehend the concept...you mean as the economy grows and develops, 10 cents (currency subdivision) should buy you more than just a zipper or a grocery bag , while the amount of money in circulation remains the same ?? is that what you mean ? Isn't that deflation ? What would that do to debt ? Please elaborate on this if possible.

Anyways, the reason I think government made cars would be better is because of the lack of a private motive.

I still don't get this....No private motive, no R&D incentive to make better cars. Government made cars would suffer because the government would have to be enormous in size in order to address this type of competition on every level and for every product (

one model of digital camera that costs $300 to make, only one model of digital camera that costs $500 to make etc.

) Large government is always bad news seasoned with a nice repressive apparatus.

I am still thinking about this concept of one model of car that costs $15,000 and only one model of car that costs $25,000 and so on, it seems like a generally efficient and intensive use of resources.
I see some drawbacks too:
- People would loathe the uniformity
- As society advances and the means of production advance, and the designs advance and change, the switch to a new line of production (as you said 7-8 years down the line) would cost more than the government may be able to stomach without breaking a few working men backs...
- (there is no third one that I can think of right now....)

As a final note, I can conclude that the system itself is NOT flawed (be it private competition or state owned production) on paper...In reality, we have to contend with a general desire to hoard and control on every level, and there lies the root of failure for any of the above systems. Getting a system to work (whether socialist or capitalist)...and I mean to REALLY work, would require painful mentality shifts, for which the human brain is not prepared...yet.

reply to post by Pejeu


Nice pizza analogy...now I'm hungry for more than just promissory pizzas....I was agreeing with your point and I understand the theory behind the FRB...I was merely trying to simplify the theory up to this point: If I die or default (assume en masse) the bubble will burst and the "interest bearing credit expansion" will bring about the "inevitable reckoning".

Either that or a global reset of all or a sizeable chunk of consumer debt.

This won't happen without a war (WW3, I mean)...

If anyone in the private sector ought to be issuing money it ought to be the producers in the economy. The ones that produce the real wealth. Against their unsold production or expected, short term production.

Takes me back to the idea I expressed earlier...we need to re-think money (currency)

originally posted by: Pejeu


OMG, that one flew right over your head.

I was talking about the dude with the gun in the picture.

What you see there is state capitalism. Not socialism. Though it undoubtedly styles itself as such.

So, if I may paraphrase, you are saying that the longer society fails to agree with you the more likely you will be to kill political adversaries?

Not me in particular, the dissatisfied workers in that society.

You know, the ones who actually produce the actual wealth?

I'm not saying I would kill someone (let alone execute them).

Though you never know until you are put in the situation where you actually are the likeliest you have ever been in your life to kill another person.

Push someone, anyone hard and far enough and there's no telling what they might do or how they might exact revenge.

For example I would, if I had the means, execute the parachuted pilot who just killed my family in a bombing run. And I would do it without the slightest compunction.

I would also most likely kill his wingman even though it's wasn't he who actually did it.

And you can take that one to the bank.

I'm truly sorry if you cannot understand how or why someone might feel or act that way.

Seems like a poor negotiating tactic to achieve your stated goal, especially since that is the very feature of totalitarianism which I find repugnant and completely substantiates my reasons for rejecting socialism.

You seem to know better than I do what my stated goals are.

My ideal (cause for them to be goals it implies I envisage a way for me to personally affect the future towards them) would be a society where banks are outlawed.

All banks.

And where there is a guaranteed and unconditional basic income.

And there is strongly progressive income tax.

And companies are taxed progressively according to the ratio of profits to expenditures.

And we force industry to protect the environment and be efficient.

And we have a one world government to enforce these rules evenly and uniformly across the entire world.

No more fiscal paradises, no more outsourcing manufacturing to China and leaving in tatters the country and society that made you and lifted you.

I realize that this is a voluminous tome and a substantial investment of intellectual energy and time but, the summary I have provided, the excerpt it is from and the whole text are provided. You may choose any or none of them to peruse.

I'll give it a try then.

I expect copious criticisms regardless of your familiarity with the subject. Proceed...

I already told you, what you call communism (and we called socialism) was actually state capitalism.

And it was bankrupted and sabotaged at every turn by the US and their Bretton Woods world reserve currency, which later became the petrodollar.

That's when you didn't actually invade or outright assassinate democratically elected government officials.

In recent times you, to preserve and prop up the petrodollar, you sabre rattle (Iran, Syria, Venezuela) or outright invade or sponsor mercenary overthrows (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libia, Syria).

Yet here you are, on your supposed moral high horse.

That's actually a wooden stool.

Collectivists seem to be incapable of conceiving the argument behind the free market.

Your counter always begins with a politically structured society.

The free market needs no political structure.

Every modern thing you take for granted was made available to you by non-governmental commercial action.

The very thing you seek to subdue.

originally posted by: Pejeu
So you're really not interested in a dialectical discussion but rather in spouting your talking points in a pretence dialogue monologue.

Why do you not answer what I said about insurance and banking?

Because you're not interested in discussion.

You know prolly better than most how bankrupt your ideology is.

Banking and insurance are services that are bought and paid for by their customers.

All else about them is due to collectivism, such as fractional reserve money creation and inflation.

Gold and other precious materials have one important feature, precious minerals are very hard to counterfeit.

They have a specific density that can be fairly easily confirmed.

That ability makes the slight inflation from mining a very small cost.