Fortunately, both of these positions are wrong. 

• On the one hand, the free market’s most vocal supporters tend to ignore the finer points of free market theory, like the part about how free markets tend towards a diminution of rents, and how profits accrue to all factors of production.
• On the other hand, opponents imagine more “freedom” only for the exploiters. They believe that “free markets” means that you are justified to do whatever you want as long as you can get away with it, and unable to imagine any alternative to the status quo, they often conclude that a free market will be worse in every way (unless you’re among that 1%).

The opponents are right to believe in this Wild West caricature because it’s exactly what will happen if you start gutting the social safety net without doing anything to fix the underlying problems. Whether unknowingly, the free market advocates ‘rhetoric is ultimately perceived as either justifying, or apologizing for, the status quo: they talk plainly about gutting social safety nets, with nary a mention of the underlying inequalities that make them necessary!

Unfortunately, it’s difficult to show people what they can’t see.

Another world is possible

Opponents often point to the present, and say “Look at the free market failing…”. Except, it’s not a free market. And it doesn’t become one just because you call it that. Then again, the proponents usually don’t have a response to this, other than parroting some “invisible hand” argument about how the market will magically self-regulate if only you get rid of all the regulations, first. But it also doesn’t magically become a free market if you haphazardly start stripping away regulations, either.

So both parties are working on a flawed model of what constitutes a free market.

Discourse, not Dogma

And although there is something to the “invisible hand” argument, it kinda sorta presupposes a free market in the first place. It is not a trump card and you can’t just pull it out every time someone challenges your position.  If you don’t do anything to remedy the “too big to fail”, if you don’t do anything to remedy the “captured regulators” or the “lobbyists”, etc., you’ve created a free market in name only, which is NOT a free market.

these guys have no place in a truly free market

It’s not sufficient to just take away those things that interfere with a free market if you intend to leave in place all of the benefits (and handicaps) accrued under the old system of exploitation. You can’t leave untouched all of the institutional inefficiencies, corruptions, cronyism, all the accrued benefits from years or decades of favoritism & protectionism, etc., and expect the market to function at all like a truly free market.

An Example

I hope to demonstrate that the removal of the immediate condition is not sufficient to cure the accumulated injustices of centuries of abuse and subjugation. Sometimes it is easy to illustrate a point by way of example; consider the aftermath of the Civil War:

The institution of chattel slavery essentially dissolves overnight but the plantation owners keep their plantations, their fancy lifestyles, their estates, acres of land and livestock. Freed slaves were left with virtually nothing (since all that was theirs had previously been denied them). So the freed slaves end up as sharecroppers or very poorly paid workers — essentially slaves — having nothing with which to bargain but their labor, they are compelled by hunger to exchange their labor for whatever pittance their former masters will offer.  Thus, injustice continues in a slightly different form

See where I’m going with this?

It is indisputably wrong for someone to argue that this outcome is the fault of the free market.

It is also indisputably wrong for a free market advocate to suggest that this is the natural result of a free market.

Yet almost every discussion of “free markets” centers around these two obviously and irrevocably incorrect assumptions.

Since all these things are directly derived from the simple barter situation and no force is added it cannot be any less ethical or moral than the original situation. If you find this development ethically offensive you are not considering the actions or behavior of the people involved–you only take the results into account. If you want to guarantee a certain result or rules of conduct in a society you will have to rely on the use of force. Relying on force simply cannot be anarchist.

I think the idea is that the fisherman never “owned” the boat in the same sense that the capitalist “owns” the factory, or the plot of land, etc. Rather, he simply used it and possessed it, and in that regard he had some superior claims to it. But he didn’t own it, and further, even if he had made it with his own two hands he still would not have “owned” it.

Therefore the force is added when he attempts to prevent someone else from using it even while he no longer has any interest in using it.

This follows from the left-Anarchist position that “ownership” is wrong per se because it implies absolute control, which implies (and justifies) hierarchy/power imbalances. Since the consequences are undesirable, one ought also oppose the concepts of “ownership” and “property” which are inseparable.

I’m not necessarily endorsing this statement, but I think I understand it. Or am I completely missing the point?

I’m just not convinced that this philosophy isn’t simply a dogmatic, knee-jerk reaction to historical abuse. Likewise I am not at all convinced that in a free society with genuine community (a concept so foreign to most people that I will not attempt to define it here – maybe another time) such abuses would be the exception rather than the rule.

They manufactured The American Dream™ and covered it with slick marketing and fancy jingles and bright shiny packaging and taught you, convinced you that it was your dream and then they solid it to you and you f*cking bought it. Hook. Line. And sinker.

This is The American Dream™. It isn’t your dream. Probably isn’t even close to your dream.

It never was.

And the sooner you realize that, the better off you’re gonna be…

Is there really some baseline amount of violence and (admitted) imperfection which is necessary to keep the rest of us from going Mad Max?  In order to prevent crime we must empower a small group of criminals to perpetrate crimes (which is what they’d be if done by any other) and thereby protect us from ourselves?  Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds?

Being so “negative” all the time doesn’t make you welcome in political discussions.Suffice to say that I do not often enter such discussions, because I am usually deafened by the sound of cognitive dissonance.

A common objection is “So what! Governments aren’t perfect.  How will the dread anarchy perfectly resolve all of the problems at which government fails?”

This objection, aside from being a glorious example of shifting goalposts and double-standards, assumes that minarchism is pragmatically superior to any other social organization, and therefore should be praised for its practicality.  Then again, if we can’t come up with a foolproof system for something as relatively uncomplicated as roads then there is zero reason to believe that we can come up with anything even approaching a foolproof system for governance.

The designs of “limited government” are admirable, or at the very least more admirable than the machinations of those who seek omnipotent government.  But I disagree that they’re any more practical than totalitarianism, or pure anarchism or anywhere else on the spectrum of politics. You need only examine minarchism’s historical record with a critical eye to understand that it often gives rise to, or conceals some of humanity’s worst.

The paragon of limited government — colonial America — ruled over and permitted two of the most brutal institutions ever to scar this planet: human trafficking/chattel slavery and the genocide of American aboriginal people and the expropriation of their lands. Excuse me, but I do not find it particularly alarming, that this isn’t exactly the sort of movement that people are willing to rally behind.

But let’s say we get limited government to “work”. I suppose this means all of the good things about colonial America and none of the bad things like slavery, genocide, the disenfranchisement of women and/or non-landowners, etc. OK. Now what?

I’m not putting the cart before the horse. Assume we get there, first. Now what. Can’t we do better than that? Even just a little bit? At some point, the “limited government”, and the structure of social arrangements and institutions of community that would arise in the absence of the omnipotent State, becomes almost in-discernably different from “no government at all”.

I don’t necessarily believe in the “incrementalist” approach, but if followed it inevitably leads here. At that point, would we still be arguing about this? If you hold restrict, threaten, force us or hold us back, well then you’re no better than any of the evil “big governments” you previously opposed. But I don’t think it would come to that. At least I hope it wouldn’t.

And at that point if you let me go my way, well then, Salut! Comrade, you’re an anarchist. You just didn’t know it.

The attendance count for the fourth Wednesday of every school year is used to determine 75% of state funding for schools statewide. It is a crucial day for cash-strapped public schools.

I always thought it was silly, but it’s especially silly now in the 21st century with digital everything. What’s the point of a single “count day”? Presumably every district — every school and every single classroom — has a “count” every day if they’re taking attendance. So using the attendance on a single day as proxy for overall participation and/or attendance in this day and age (c’mon, it’s not like someone has to manually tally all the attendance numbers) is about as retarded as a football bat. And it can easily be manipulated, something which Detroit Public Schools acknowledge through the “incentives” they put in place to get more kids to show up, skewing the numbers in their favor:

In Detroit, count day has become a festive affair in many schools. This year, it will include prizes, giveaways, face-painting, open houses and health screenings to make sure kids — and thereby state funds — show up to school. Parents who send their students for a full day will get a chance to win a Target gift card.

There is no reason to believe that a sample size of one is representative of an entire district’s daily enrollment/attendance. They should use a mean attendance; the average number of students attending school on a daily basis over the course of the year.

We might suppose that, in addition to probably cutting out the ‘middleman’ (the capitalist-entrepreneur), worker-owners would allocate revenues over their costs of production differently than would the capitalist ‘owners’. For starters we expect that they would either have, or aim to have, vastly different cost structures in the first place. But that’s a digression we need not follow.

So for the moment let’s forget about this and imagine that the workers have just wrested control from the hands of the “capitalists”, and that the cost structures (imperfect as they are) remain at least for the short- and probably for the medium-term.

Aside from beginning to pink-slip all the bureaucrats (how you identify and defenestrate the bureaucrats, I don’t really care) and turning those dividend checks (previously distributed to absentee shareholders) in to coin in the workman’s pockets, what else do they do differently?

The entirety of disagreement between cappies/commies, boils down to what is essentially a difference of opinion with regard to how sales revenues should be allocated.  Is it really that simple?

Maybe, but probably not. Stay tuned.

Then, a few days ago I read an op-ed which suggests Obama is beginning to display signs of narcissistic personality disorder. I wrote it off as partisan ass-hattery because a few cherry-picked examples, spun in the worst possible light in the context of an op-ed that cites “Newt Gingrich” as an authoritative source probably isn’t the best way to evaluate someone’s mental health.

But the more I think about it, the more merit it seems to have. For example, it lists a number of specific cases and explains how the bizarre behavior might be signs of a personality disorder:

In March of last year Obama was on “60 Minutes” with Steve Kroft. Throughout the interview as Kroft questioned about the economic downturn and people losing their life savings, Obama just kept laughing. A one point CBS’s Kroft stopped him and asked, “Are you punch drunk?” How will the American people react to seeing their president laugh off their predicament? Obama’s inappropriate laughter clearly demonstrated he has lost touch with the pain that people are feeling.

An author on the subject, Sam Vaknin also suggests that

[A] narcissist always prefers show-off to substance. One of the most effective methods of exposing a narcissist is by trying to delve deeper. The narcissist is shallow, a pond pretending to be an ocean.

This is interesting, because Obama doesn’t fare well under close scrutiny. Some of the most grandiose claims on his resume may be false: Obama was never a “Professor of Law” at University of Chicago—he was an ‘instructor’ or adjunct, below the level of an Associate Professor. He also has the dubious honor to have been the only “Editor” of the Harvard Law Review to never have been published while in school, which kind of suggests the position was an “honorary” one, without any merit whatsoever.

Then I read this morning that Obama had the audacity to jest that the Tea Party protesters should be thankful that he has “cut taxes”. The Dallas News reports:

[Obama is] amused by the Tea Party tax protests that took place around Tax Day and that contrary to claims of demonstrators, he has cut taxes.

“You would think they’d be saying thank you…” he said at a fundraiser in Miami.

Does he mean the tax “cut” that wasn’t really a “cut”? Whereby they temporarily reduced the amount of withohlding from our paychecks, but did not make any downward adjustment to the schedules determining what we would be liable to owe at the end of the year? For many people accustomed to receiving “refunds” (I use this term loosely, since it’s not really a “refund”) they’re discovering for the very first time what it’s like to “owe” taxes at the end of the year. Hopefully they’re pissed off about it, too.

Even if you take his word for it, the average American got something like $8/month, at the very same time that banks were receiving a Trillion dollars worth of corporate welfare…

Even though he was speaking to supporters, at a fundraiser, I think this is flagrant statement; it’s not like the rest of us were never going to hear about it. But that sort of arrogant, cavalier attitude is one hallmark of a person suffering from NPD.

Now, don’t get all butthurt over this. I’m not a doctor, and even with all of the powers of Google at my command, I’m not qualified to evaluate anyone’s mental health. But according to Teh Wikipedia list of characteristics of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Obama exhibits all of them:

• Is inter-personally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
• Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
• Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
• Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.

Check, check, check and check. Sooner or later all this stuff starts to add up, and the probability of it all being a series of extraordinary coincidences drops to zero.

Then again, these traits are strong in anyone who is successful in politics. I mean, the first two especially, basically define how politics works, and what politicians do. Kip, Esquire used to say that “all politicians, by definition, are moral defectives.” Perhaps severe narcissistic personality disorder is that defect.

It’s one explanation.

He sent me the money via PayPal and I packaged up the board and shipped it out to New York.

Once I had his money, I shopped for a new board, and found a guy selling some Ride snowboards (I got the 2010 Ride Machete) at serious discount like 35% off. Again, not a store, not e-bay, not craigslist or face-to-face. I sent him a few hundred bucks via paypal and 3 days later a brand new snowboard arrived at my office. I vouched for him on the forum and he lined up a few more sales.

Another contact of mine (let’s call him “S”) lives in Montreal area, for some reasons (monopoly reasons, probably) many US retailers are not allowed to ship certain brands outside of the U.S.; this includes all of the big name brands in snowboarding like Burton, Ride, K2, Gnu/Lib Technologies, etc.  But right now, discounts are in full-swing at many US retailers.  So “S” wanted to buy a few new snowboards and some bindings. I offered to proxy, so he’s having them sent to me and I’m going to turn around and ship them UPS or FedEx to Canada.

So he bought one board from the same guy I bought my Ride from, and another from an online store.

If you’re wondering – even if he gets tagged with duty/taxes/etc., he’s still going to come out a winner versus buying the same boards from a Canadian retailer.

Here is a guy who I’ve never met in meatspace, and have only known a short time in the online, who’s shipping probably $700 USD worth of gear to me, on faith that I’m not a total douche who is just going to rip him off for two snowboards. Really, what could he do about it? Probably nothing really.

Fortunately for “S”, I’m not a total douche (partial, maybe) and I’m going to ship them right out tomorrow.

OK, no, this doesn’t totally restore my faith in humanity, but it definitely gives me a glimmer of hope: A few people who don’t know each other and have never met and really have no “legal” recourse against one another, have transacted probably over $1,200 worth of business, completely on our own. I’ve always felt like, when given the opportunity, most people are genuinely decent.

I think the problem is that governments have made those “opportunities” fewer, and further between.

I don’t give a damn what happens to anyone who is objectively “bad,” and therefore, I find it foolish, counterproductive, and wasteful (among other things), to arrange a societal framework round these folk.

If you look closely you’ll see that a society of laws, when organized in such fashion, quickly becomes the antithesis of just.  As the law itself is used increasingly to define what is (or is not) “bad”, people vie to control the law in order to wield its awesome power over others, and class warfare is born!  Viz., good people shouldn’t need a ruler, although some of them they may feel they should have one nonetheless.  Yet, who has the strongest incentive to rule over otherwise good individuals, but he who is least fit for the duty?

Only an evil man finds it necessary or advantageous to rule over good men.

And the law as an apparatus of control is a necessary condition for the establishment of tyranny.