Slashdot Mirror

They control the schools so they can control the curriculum with the intent of making good little socialists out of everyone? They are doing a remarkably bad job of it, considering how many conservatives there are.

Conservatism is a form of socialism (pages 65+).

I was a little unsure what exactly you were advocating in the original post, and now I know. While your arguments highlight the theoretical positive effects of deflation, the empirical evidence of the negative effects of deflation on an economy tends to sway me towards the side of inflationary policies. Most notably, Japan's ~15 years of deflation, during which their economy has not done terribly well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation#Examples_of _deflation

How about the United States? The second example on your source links to "The Great Deflation":

The Great Deflation refers to the period from 1870 until 1890 in which world prices of goods, materials and labor decreased. This had a negative effect on established industrial economies such as Great Britain while simultaneously allowing incredible growth in the United States which was just beginning to industrialize.

I'd say that counts as "deflation working to boost a country's economy." The "negative effect" in Great Britain was probably the result of a less downwardly-flexible price structure, resulting from merchantilist policies and stubborn labor unions.[1] Also, as it's described in the linked Wikipedia page, I'd say that the falling price levels in Japan were the result of (prior) inflationary policies (leading to the equity and real-estate bubbles) and centralized fractional-reserve banking. In fact, this case sounds a lot like the Great Depression: it followed an inflationary boom, which the government and central bank attempted (and failed) to prolong by further inflating the money supply and cutting interest rates. There were two opposing forces active simultaneously: the deflationary correction to the prior inflationary boom economy, and the attempts if their government and central bank to counter the deflation through further inflation. You are blaming the former influence for their economic troubles; I would blame the latter.

Hong Kong appears to have been very similar, with deflation following extensive prior inflationary policies: "In October 1997, the Hong Kong dollar, which was pegged at 7.8 to the US dollar, came under speculative pressure since Hong Kong's inflation rate was significantly higher than that of the US for years" (emphasis added). Whenever any commodity or currency becomes overvalued (through inflation, for example) the eventual result is a downward correction in its price (i.e. deflation). The downward price correction is the cure, not the disease. Furthermore, the effects of falling prices in an undistorted economy, in which there is no overvaluation, cannot be directly compared with the effects of corrective deflation. The former need not have any ill effect, real or perceived, whereas the latter inevitably exposes the malinvestments made during the inflationary boom.

Further reading:

• America's Great Depression, by Murray N. Rothbard
• A History of Money and Banking in the United States, by Rothbard
• Deflation, Free or Compulsory, by Rothbard
• A Theory of Socialism & Capitalism, by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

[1] Downwardly-inflexible wage rates were also the reason given to justify later inflation in the United States. It was thought that inflation would fool the labor union into accepting falling real wages as long as monetary wages did not decrease. It didn't take long, however, for the unions to notice the discrepency and institute inflation-indexed wages, thus nullifying any advantage this approach may have offered.

I was speaking sarcastically; I don't actually believe economics to be a religion, of course. The point was that the world cannot be cleanly divided into "science" and "religion" -- not everything not classified as science is necessarily religion, and vice-versa. Nonetheless, the point about not getting involved is just as true if economics is, as you claim, a matter of beliefs without possibility of proof as it would be if economics were truly a religion. How can any interference be justified (or claimed to bring about an improvement) if the outcome of such policies cannot be accurately predicted in advance?

I have a feeling you've never looked into praxeology -- the logical study of human action, and the basis for the Austrian school of economics -- since its theories are both provable and falsifiable, and not based on the beliefs of individuals any more than the validity of mathematics or logic, or the scientific method, are based on such beliefs. Its conclusions are not based purely on "persuasive arguments" but rather on logical deduction from first principles. If you wish to examine these claims, I recommend Economics for Real People by Gene Callahan, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (particularly pages 46-59 on "empiricism-positivism"), and finally either Man, Economy, and State by Murray N. Rothbard or Human Action by Ludwig von Mises (all titles listed in ascending order by my assessment of difficulty and detail).

In any event, you didn't address my second (more important) point: as long as democratic (republican) governments insist on meddling in economics, voters should take it upon themselves to learn something of economics and employ that understanding in choosing their representatives, for themselves and for the other individuals their choices will affect.

"Note that Old Europe was starkly divided on class lines, and life generally sucked for all but the top echelon of society."

Completely irrelevant.

"I don't know anything about Ancient Ireland, but did you notice that it isn't around anymore?"

An idiotic statement. No society has lasted from the dawn of mankind until present. Period. So this observation is meaningless. The US won't be around 1000 years from now either; Ancient Rome, Egypt, or Greece aren't around either. So what? 1000 years to the credit of Ancient Ireland is pretty significant.

Also, saying "it isn't around anymore" is a fallicious argument. Just because a given system "isn't anymore" doesn't mean it isn't the best possible system of political organization.

All States are evil by definition: they tax (rob) and use violence to prevent competition. You also seem to be willfully ignornat of the reality of States: they allow individuals within them to externalize the costs of aggression, hence these individuals are more aggressive, ceteris paribus. It is an institutional problems of all States, although more-so in some than others (e.g., it is particularly problematic in Democracy, where rulers are only temporary, hence the tragedy of the commons exists from their perspective, as they have no incentive to bother with preserving anything, but only the expropriate as much as possible while they're in office).

"Also, why do you have the right to your property. Any inherent reason? I'm sure most communists would disagree."

You have the right to your property because you homesteaded it, and because that is the only non-arbitrary way to have property. The communist ideaology would mean death for mankind, as it would prevent the ownership of property, which is essential for survival. Capital could never be accumulated -- hence no long-term savings could occur, nor any planning for the future -- without private property ownership. As for property not homesteaded by the current owner, ownership can also be justified by voluntary exchanges from original homesteaders, or so-on down the line.

As for ultimate arguments for the justification of self-ownership and private property rights (homesteading), see Hans Hoppe's argumentation ethics. Also see Rothbard, Murray. For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Creed (search for Property Rights, case-sensitive).

"Anyway, you agree to our laws by living here. If you don't like it, leave, is a very valid sentiment. The only reason it wouldn't be is if this was some sort of state that prevented people from leaving."

That's pure BS. The argument that anything is justified so-long as emigration isn't restricted is pure and complete BS, and completely fails to understand what justice is. Anyone who could say such either has no conception of justice, or isn't thinking about what the implications of what he's saying. What you're saying is that if me and my neighbors have a peaceful neighborhood, and some mafia lord moves in and aggresses against us, "if we don't like it, we have to leave" otherwise we have no cause to complain. In the current context, your statement is fallicious, as it assumes what it's trying to prove: that the State is justified. If you didn't assume that the State was justified in the first place, you couldn't say, "if you don't like it, leave".

According to your "logic", somehow, Nazi Germany would have been justified if only Hitler had let the Jews leave. That is, if he gave them the choice to "leave or be exterminated". Of course, such an ultimatum would completely violate their property rights. It's like me coming into your house and saying, "If you leave, I won't murder you. If you stay, I will". According to your argument, somehow, there is nothing wrong with this.

Check this book out http://www.hanshoppe.com/ before buying into the big lie of democracy.

I'd suggest you actually become knowledgeable of something before criticizing it. You obviously didn't read my claim carefully: I said that you cannot dispute the non-aggression axiom without self-contradiction (thus, any argument attempting to do so is self-defeating). This means that the non-aggression axiom meets the definition of an a priori axiomatic truth, like the action axiom (the action axiom states that "man acts"; if you try to dispute it, you are contradicting yourself because you are acting). See my summary of it in these notes. For a more elaborated discussion of argumentation ethics, see:

The Ethical Justification of Capitalism and Why Socialism Is Morally Indefensible
On the Ultimate Justification of the Ethics of Private Property
The Justice of Economic Efficiency
Four Critical Replies -- critical replies to Hoppe's argumentation ethics from libertarians, and a response from Hoppe.

Summarily discussing other issues, the idea of society being justified by a "social contract" shows how far removed its adherents are from reality. Where is this social contract? How in the hell did anyone consent to it? Simply by not leaving? By that idiotic reasoning, the victims of mafia-dons "consent" to protection-rackets, because they don't move. Furthermore, by the view that there is no natural law, there can be no argument that what Hitler did was wrong -- it was just something that you don't like, in the same sense that you might not like burssel sprouts (a personal preference).

Regarding the Taliban and Afghanistan, I suggest you look at history: A History of Terror. It is US foreign policy that has helped terrorism, and fueled recruitment into terrorist organizations. We've killed far more innocent civilians in Afghanistan than terrorists. For a discussion of defense, I suggest The Myth of National Defense.

I'd suggest you actually become knowledgeable of something before criticizing it. You obviously didn't read my claim carefully: I said that you cannot dispute the non-aggression axiom without self-contradiction (thus, any argument attempting to do so is self-defeating). This means that the non-aggression axiom meets the definition of an a priori axiomatic truth, like the action axiom (the action axiom states that "man acts"; if you try to dispute it, you are contradicting yourself because you are acting). See my summary of it in these notes. For a more elaborated discussion of argumentation ethics, see:

The Ethical Justification of Capitalism and Why Socialism Is Morally Indefensible
On the Ultimate Justification of the Ethics of Private Property
The Justice of Economic Efficiency
Four Critical Replies -- critical replies to Hoppe's argumentation ethics from libertarians, and a response from Hoppe.

Summarily discussing other issues, the idea of society being justified by a "social contract" shows how far removed its adherents are from reality. Where is this social contract? How in the hell did anyone consent to it? Simply by not leaving? By that idiotic reasoning, the victims of mafia-dons "consent" to protection-rackets, because they don't move. Furthermore, by the view that there is no natural law, there can be no argument that what Hitler did was wrong -- it was just something that you don't like, in the same sense that you might not like burssel sprouts (a personal preference).

Regarding the Taliban and Afghanistan, I suggest you look at history: A History of Terror. It is US foreign policy that has helped terrorism, and fueled recruitment into terrorist organizations. We've killed far more innocent civilians in Afghanistan than terrorists. For a discussion of defense, I suggest The Myth of National Defense.

I'd suggest you actually become knowledgeable of something before criticizing it. You obviously didn't read my claim carefully: I said that you cannot dispute the non-aggression axiom without self-contradiction (thus, any argument attempting to do so is self-defeating). This means that the non-aggression axiom meets the definition of an a priori axiomatic truth, like the action axiom (the action axiom states that "man acts"; if you try to dispute it, you are contradicting yourself because you are acting). See my summary of it in these notes. For a more elaborated discussion of argumentation ethics, see:

The Ethical Justification of Capitalism and Why Socialism Is Morally Indefensible
On the Ultimate Justification of the Ethics of Private Property
The Justice of Economic Efficiency
Four Critical Replies -- critical replies to Hoppe's argumentation ethics from libertarians, and a response from Hoppe.

Summarily discussing other issues, the idea of society being justified by a "social contract" shows how far removed its adherents are from reality. Where is this social contract? How in the hell did anyone consent to it? Simply by not leaving? By that idiotic reasoning, the victims of mafia-dons "consent" to protection-rackets, because they don't move. Furthermore, by the view that there is no natural law, there can be no argument that what Hitler did was wrong -- it was just something that you don't like, in the same sense that you might not like burssel sprouts (a personal preference).

Regarding the Taliban and Afghanistan, I suggest you look at history: A History of Terror. It is US foreign policy that has helped terrorism, and fueled recruitment into terrorist organizations. We've killed far more innocent civilians in Afghanistan than terrorists. For a discussion of defense, I suggest The Myth of National Defense.