The majority does not desire freedom. Is freedom equivalent to private property rights, and are private property rights equivalent to voluntary exchange? If so, people desire to consume voluntarily, but demonstrably not to produce voluntarily. Money may be equal in purchasing power regardless of who holds it. But it is not equally productive regardless of who holds it. Therefore there is a structural advantage to intelligence, will, and discipline under capitalism. It is a virtuous advantage, thats true. But an advantage. Only a minority desire Freedom. Liberty. Property rights. Voluntary exchange. To the rest of the world freedom means freedom to consume. Not responsibility for limiting all transfers to voluntary exchange in the market. And it is praxeologically irrational to expect them to. This difference between normative libertarian ethics and dscriptive ethics is significant. And denial that the praxeologial incentives for people to organize into groups seeking non productive participation in profits is evidence of the intellectual failure of the framework of thought. Our argument is that un the long run we all benefit. And its true. However the majority demonstrate little concern for the long run. In fact social status is largely a function of time preference. So, given our numerical inferiority, we can use violence to preserve our rights as did our ancestors. But begging for them by weak argument is a demonstrated failure. :) Or we can develop solutions for institutions that, like the market, do not require us to cooperate on ends, or even norms. We cannot logically agree on morals, ethics, and norms. Not when we no longer reproduce, produce, and vote as families and aggregate our interests, but instead, reproduce, produce, and vote as individual actors, whereupon our differences are not masked by family interest, but expressed as individual interest. In particular, the addition of women to the labor and voting pools has led to policy, unlike that of the family, that systemically seeks rents: women vote to marry the state. Not their husbands.
Posted on: Fri, 05 Jul 2013 10:15:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015