I will admit in advance I only scanned it. I have read in full many pieces like this. Their point is to so overwhelm the reader with seeming erudition that basic questions are missed, like “does socialism work?” This is such a common tactic with the left that I would submit their propaganda would be impossible without it.
I have one simple question: what is the point of economic activity, if not to liberate the capacity for moral development? And if that is the point, is not the question of how to do this an empirical and not a moral question? Is it not obvious beyond any possibility of discussion that free markets create both wealth and the possibility of leisure–at least in a post-tribal society, and certainly in a crowded world–far better than any possible alternative?
The salient malignancy of socialism is that the egalitarian creed rejects morality outright. Morality depends upon the notion of progress, and progress in turn depends upon the notion that some people have developed more than others. This does not mean they were born that way, but that the very concept of a meritocracy depends upon the notion of people who are morally qualitatively different, even if equal before the law.
Unless you can answer my first question–again, “what is the point of economic activity, if not to liberate the capacity for moral development?”–then I will assume based on long experience that, despite your capacity to produce seemingly useful words, that your project is one of destruction, not creation; death, not life.
3 replies on “Economics Post”
Hah! I happened to read a Legal Insurrection post right before this one (you guys are practically next to each other on my RSS reader ;-), which contained a video quite pertinent to your point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=p31-xQ2Rrz4
Enjoy 🙂
Well, at least you admit that you didn't actually read the article. Forgive me if I didn't take your right-wing tirade seriously then?
Anonymous 1: I'm a big Friedman fan, with the very important exception that he never seems to have fully grasped the malignancy of fractional reserve banking. "Monetarism" depends on low level inflation, which he fully accepted, and which I do not.
Anonymous 2: Regardless of whether or not I read the entire bait-and-switch maneuver, I for my part did make points which an agile mind equipped with facts and the capacity for reasoning could have assailed, were it able to do so.
If you follow me for any length of time, what you will not find me doing is talking about the arguments I could have made, if only my opponent were not so stupid. I make my points. There is never any lack of clarity. What does on rare occasions happen is that I get tired of very long debates with obtuse and stubborn people; but that is only after dozens of exchanges. There have been none here.
What you have done is label me, then forget me. This is a convenient tactic for the intellectually and hence morally bankrupt.