Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: “One of the most important reasons for studying history is that virtually every stupid idea that is in vogue today has been tried before and proved disastrous before, time and again.” — Dr. Thomas Sowell

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 2, 2011, 1:42 p.m. EST by owschico (295)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

What seems to be motivating the protests? At least in part the goal seems to be equality. The protesters apparently think it as unfair that only a small percentage, the very rich, has so much while everyone else has much less. Today’s document, an article from 1948 by economist Wilhelm Ropke titled “Crusade Against Luxuries,” is relevant. Ropke’s article shows the fallacies related to the prohibiting of luxuries in order to provide more for the poor. Similarly the protesters are revolting against the wealth of the “fat cat” bankers and other large corporations, while most people can’t get simple jobs, afford health care, or pay off their student loans. True, there are individuals with yachts while others barely making a living. The fallacy, however, is in the solution.

Ropke shows that prohibiting certain luxuries does not translate into more for the poor but instead “substitutes” certain luxuries for other less desired luxuries. What we end up with is the same amount of luxuries, or only slightly less, with lower utility throughout society. If the Wall Street protesters get their way, however, things could be even worse. The socialization of industry and banking would be a disaster and overregulating would simply incentivize businesses to produce less, which would mean higher not lower prices. Again we would all be worse off, not better.

So what is the solution? It’s all in the institutions. As David Hume put it, we need to assume all men are knaves. Thus we should want a society were bad men can do the least harm. Right now government power is backing the large corporations and large banks, protecting them from the difficulties of competition. This is the “capitalism” libertarians are attacking. It is crony capitalism, the use of government coercion to back certain individuals and businesses at the expense of everyone else. We want to eliminate this cooperation between government and business. Let free markets and real competition reign. This competition will result in a process that will produce more and more products at lower and lower prices.

The hurdle we need to get over is exactly what Ropke brought up back in 1948: Public Choice problems. There are a lot of vested interests that will not give up their power without a fight. But as a first step we need to recognize the true enemy to progress and freedom: government involvement in the economy. We need to realize that voluntary interactions are superior to any form of coercion, including by government. The protesters want to fight fire with fire and in doing so, they ignore Public Choice issues to their own detriment.

27 Comments

27 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Dutchess (499) 12 years ago

This movement should not be about minding people being rich but about EQUAL access to justice. We have a Two Tier Justice system , which is explained in detain in Constititutional and Civil Liberties Attorney Glenn Greenwalds book "With Liberty and Justice for some'

If only high govt officials are to be held accountable for their criminal actions under the law...we would not be in the financial chaos of today and the economy would be thriving with people at the bottom having access to jobs and being able to make a decent living.

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 12 years ago

you are right, we would also not had any war since WW2 if that were the case.

[-] 2 points by hairlessOrphan (522) 12 years ago

"We need to assume all men are knaves ... voluntary interactions are superior to any form of coercion."

There's an obvious logical inconsistency here that needs to be addressed before any system built on this foundation can enjoy credibility.

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 12 years ago

What is inconsistent? Assuming all men are knaves? Or that voluntary interactions are superior to coercion? Since we can not assume all men are honest, that would be foolish... correct?

[-] 1 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 12 years ago

If all men are knaves, then how can voluntary interaction with them be superior?

Seems to me that's the inconsistency.

[-] 1 points by hairlessOrphan (522) 12 years ago

I'm wondering what kind of voluntary interactions you expect knaves to enjoy.

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 12 years ago

ones that work to their advantage, that create a profit. But do not violate basic human rights (life liberty, POH) or laws.

[-] 1 points by hairlessOrphan (522) 12 years ago

You think knaves voluntarily factor in basic human rights? Curious. Maybe you mean something different by "knave." Maybe you mean there's a class of villainy a cut above "evil," and we only have to assume that everyone is "kind of" bad, but "not all that" bad?

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 12 years ago

we are just assuming everyone is out for #1 even if helping people or supplying goods to others is how that is done. The ultimate motivator is #1

[-] 1 points by hairlessOrphan (522) 12 years ago

Ok. I hate that over-simplified extremist theory, because it fucks over anyone who isn't focused exclusively on #1 - precisely the people who society as a whole should not fuck over, precisely the behavior a functional society should not disincentivize - but let's roll with it for now.

What do you have to say about people who are out for #1 even if decidedly not helping people is how that is done? What kind of success do you think we will have enlisting their "voluntary" interaction, and not coercing them in any way? Is it, after all, superior?

Get me? I support building a philosophical foundation on first principles, but I think you've chosen some indefensible ones.

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 12 years ago

if they are not helping people they have to work within the laws and can not infringe on others basic human rights. Life (property) Liberty, and POH

[-] 1 points by hairlessOrphan (522) 12 years ago

Therefore: coercion. Not voluntary.

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 12 years ago

its voluntary within those constraints, you can do what ever you want as long as you do not infringe on others basic human rights or break laws. The problem we have is not a government coercion picking who winners and losers are, we need to take away the stitching between large corporations and government.

[-] 1 points by hairlessOrphan (522) 12 years ago

All systems of coercion enjoy voluntary action within the constraints the system dictates. It's just: the more coercive, the stricter the constraints.

I get what you're trying to say, but that's not what your post is actually saying. Tread carefully when you pick your pet theories. Someone sold you voluntary society theory, and you bought it without checking the contents.

If what you want is to get money out of politics, that's fine. It's got nothing to do with voluntary vs. coercion, though. It's got nothing to do with regulation or deregulation. I urge you to re-examine the principles and solutions you think you support, and see if you really understand them.

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 12 years ago

100% voluntary system is not possible. But we have to strive for a mostly voluntary society where nobody is forced to do anything but they do to further their own ends. I understand what you are saying, but I do think volunteerism is preferable to coercion.

[-] 1 points by xamtune (20) 12 years ago

"The socialization of industry and banking would be a disaster and overregulating would simply incentivize businesses to produce less, which would mean higher not lower prices. "
Thats just uneducated; author has poor knowledge of economics, history, and sociology. BTW, what IS the "socialization" of industry? socialization is what happens to humans as they navigate the social system...

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 12 years ago

socialized health care would be an example, of a good or service that is being socialized.

[-] 1 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 12 years ago

The problem lies not just with government and not just with big business. The problem lies in the unholy alliance between the two.

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 12 years ago

as stated above "crony capitalism"

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 12 years ago

History is merely a very short story of much of the same....repeating itself.

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 12 years ago

may i add "history is the lie commonly agreed upon" -voltaire

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

History is written by the winners.

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 12 years ago

hence Russia TV being the most reliable source for news

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 12 years ago

agreed there too....;)

Like Abe Lincoln 'saving' the slaves while he would have kept slavery on the books IF that would have been the key to 'save the union'

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 12 years ago

This could go on for days

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 12 years ago

the people in power today would not be their if they did not write history to suit their own agenda

[-] 1 points by drbits (3) 12 years ago

Bingo.