Taylor,

OK, I guess our beliefs aren’t so far apart after all. I certainly agree that Obama, Frank & Co. are narcissists par excellence. Hayek said it best; they have a fatal conceit. They think they know what’s good for us better than we do, and they also think they know how to make their perfect world a reality. And if while bringing about heaven on earth, you have to break a few eggs, well….

Also, while I agree somewhat that Oliva’s post is wrong-headed (I don’t think Obama is just a thief), and fairly poor polemic as well (it’s preaching to the choir, and will convince nobody who isn’t already convinced), I do I agree with part of his post: “Through his various proposals, Barack Obama is intentionally prolonging and deepening the current economic collapse.” After all, as Rahm Emmanuel has said, a good crisis shouldn’t be allowed to go to waste. And perhaps it should even be prolonged. I do believe that Obama is narcissistic enough to think that he can control the crisis, and pull it back before it goes too far. Even if he’s not just a hustler, as Oliva thinks, that alone is scary enough, and worthy of some consideration.

Russ,

I actually am in full agreement with your post. The only caveat I’d add is that if you try to read Oliva’s post a little deeper I think he’s trying to formulate a conception of why Obama does what he does to convince people that he’s dangerous not just because he’s wrong but because he’s poorly motivated, too.

But yes, this post probably belongs to a recent series by Mises blog authors that don’t seem incredibly well-thought out or “well-researched” but come across more like off-the-cuff midnight notepad scribblings after waking up from a bad, political nightmare.

However, at the same time, it sure is generating a lot of discussion, haha! And it’s also something different, as a lot of the posts have become entirely predictable, not only in their topics but also in their borrowing thoroughness.

Taylor,

You’re not necessarily wrong about anything, you’re just not being civil. Your posts are dripping with smugness. Please try to be civil, and not contribute to this turning into a flame war.

Joseph Mises,

If you think that your appeal to popularity via electoral politics will lead to a more free-market set of government policies, you are mistaken.

This debate over market freedom is as old as the hills. If you are still in school, then you have not seen enough of the world, or lived through enough electoral cycles to see how the same tired old rhetorical crap get recycled again and again.

Statists know your arguments. They just don’t care.

Your belief that the State will accede to your request for more market freedom, merely by virtue of the correctness of your ideas, is like a slave asking a slave-master for more liberty, deference and conciliation.

Not. Gonna. Happen.

Alexander S. Peak,

I believe I was confused on what Block said. Joseph Mises said:

a comment made by Professor Walter Block who carefully said a dictator could potentially be an Austrian economist and apply all the Austrian analysis in his interventions on the market, like a central bank bringing about a boom and bust cycle.

My interpretation of this was that he was saying Block was saying that a dictator could somehow “fine-tune” his interventions through Austrian economic analysis (ie, perhaps he’d use his knowledge of the effects taxes have on supply to specifically target the production of something he detested). My remark was that that wouldn’t be a form of Austrian economics but rather socialist manipulation, and that if a dictator WERE acting according to Austrianism he’d not be a dictator.

I see where my confusion arose and I agree that I misinterpreted. As you describe Block’s remark (and now that I re-read it, Joseph Mises re-phrasing of it), I would have to say I agree. But then Block would seem to be arguing for the impure motives of someone like Obama– were he to be aware of Austrian econ and even understand it and believe it, and do what he does anyway, he would be a very awful person indeed.

I don’t know what I said to make you think I conflate a priori, state-of-nature reasoning with libertarianism. The point I tried to make above in pointing it out was only to show that Austrian economics use that state of nature as a beginning point and looks at the state as something inorganic to human society, not something that is necessarily a part of it. Certainly there have been other thinkers who have used the same beginnings for their reasoning and have been lead to other conclusions, Hobbes being one of them.

True, that’s my bad Taylor. I should’ve quote more appropriately.

ShedPlant,

Here is the nuance of my belief system and philosophy, I guess… I don’t equate the belief in or justification of, theft, to be intelligent. That necessarily makes a person stupid in my mind. It’s a contradiction of reality and a negation of self to behave in that way. It is not a “sustainable” standard of survival and it comes unjustly at the expense of others. I think you have to be stupid to convince yourself you’re better than others and therefore you are justified in behaving anti-socially in this regard.

Other people have no problem calling someone like this intelligent. I can’t tell if that’s what Oliva is saying or not.

As I hinted at in a previous comment, I believe if you examine what socialism actually means, as a system of production (ahem… consumption), governance, philosophical underpinnings, etc., I believe it IS a system aimed at promoting general harm and destruction. I believe some people who are socialists DO understand this and follow socialism out of spite, malice and envy for those they are jealous of (this goes back to my belief that socialism is an outgrowth of psychological immaturity, denial, inability to deal with reality), while others maybe haven’t fully realized the implications of that which they are proposing, yet understand it enough that they should be condemned for their support.

For example, maybe you (general “you”, not specifically you, ShedPlant) don’t realize that socialism inevitably leads to dictatorship, social decay, falling standards of living, etc. But surely you DO realize that it is a levelling mechanism and that’s one reason you call for it. I’ve never met a socialist who supported socialism because they thought it’d make everyone better off, but you did not understand that, in the process, some people would be made worse off than they are now. That little bit, the making people worse off than they are now, is one way in which a socialist is willfully trying to promote general harm and destruction.

I hope this makes my position more clear to you? And I appreciate your attempt to understand me.

Fair enough.

But let’s return to my original point (for which you called me names :’( ).

“Barack Obama is intentionally prolonging and deepening the current economic collapse. He fully understands his proposals won’t work.”

I don’t understand how Olivia claims to have such an intimate knowledge of Obama’s psychology. He talks and acts like a sincere socialist, so on what evidence does Olivia claim he isn’t a socialist at all, but a self-acknowledged plunderer?

No, indeed, I say it is a baseless assertion, not to mention rude and a little paranoid. You put it quite well yourself as “off-the-cuff midnight notepad scribblings after waking up from a bad, political nightmare”.

Although I don’t claim to be privy to Obama’s personal intentions, it’s not possible for him to be a “true believer” narcissistic socialist (your position) and a deliberate saboteur of the American economy (Olivia’s position).

ShedPlant wrote:
“I do not accept, without solid evidence, that any individual in government (or elsewhere for that matter) is actively and wilfully trying to promote general harm and destruction.”

I do think Obama *may* be doing this actively and willfully, but in order to prolong the crisis, and hence be able to take advantage of it to further the socialist agenda (which in his mind is worth it), not out of sheer malice.

Taylor wrote:
“I think you have to be stupid to convince yourself you’re better than others and therefore you are justified in behaving anti-socially in this regard.”

I don’t know about this one. Common criminals do tend to be stupid losers. (Ever watch the cartoon League Of Super Evil, or LOSE? Hilarious!) High level criminals, however… And high level politicians are the most high level criminals, of course! Pol Pot died in his sleep…

I wrote:
“I do think Obama *may* be doing this actively and willfully, but in order to prolong the crisis, and hence be able to take advantage of it to further the socialist agenda (which in his mind is worth it), not out of sheer malice.”

Oh, I forgot the evidence. Why do I believe this? Well, how about the fact that the president said that the Stimulus package was an emergency measure that simply had to be passed immediately, but the funds in the bill itself are very “slow release”. A large portion won’t be spent until next year or later. So why the emergency? I got this point by reading Thomas Sowell’s excellent book on the housing crisis, and he says that he believes this is evidence that Obama’s real agenda is not to fix the current crisis, but to effect long term change in the American political system. Hey, if Thomas Sowell believes it, at least I’m in good company.

Not really.

There is a move towards world government.
- Methodological individualism. Doesn’t just happen by itself.

“I would have thought this was a given. It’s hard to believe anyone makes it through the political matrix of corruption to presidency without manifest knowledge of the fallacies and violence that define the position.”
I agree with hashem’s comment. I don’t see how anyone rises to the top of government power in a democractic process unless he is a skilled liar, potential thief and potential murderer.

And I don’t think that questioning the motives of elected leaders is somehow irresponsible or unbecoming of the Mises Institute. The State is a monopoly on aggression. Everything it does is backed by violence, as Mises himself pointed out. We should wonder what motivates a person to seek control of such an entity. What should we think of a person who wants the power to beat, imprison, and kill people who disagree with him and are willing to resist his rule? And if you think that I am exaggerating try not paying your taxes or start a business without a license. Obama could be a true believer of socialism with pure motives and flawed means, but he could also be a power hungry psychopath who has fooled the masses into believing that he means well and will do the best he can.

He is an educated man and knows exactly how destructive these policies are.

I think what most people don’t spot is that its not presidents that decide economic theory it’s their economic advisors.

Because the types of economic advice are so predictable those that understand the likely outcomes always alter their position to benefit most from them.

Worst of all, what might be the most prudent economic policy is not necessarily followed as politicians want to be re-elected at the next election and economic restructuring talks longer cycles.

Gil

Very good point. Organizations (not businesses, at least so far) closely associated with the President have received significant sums of money, most notably ACORN and the UAW. This would indicate that Obama is not trying to get rich in the monetary sense, but certainly reward political allies with resources and power (ACORN is being contracted to work on the 2010 census, for example) in the hopes that they will then use these gifts to assist him in other areas. This, of course, is standard politics-as-usual, but the scale is alarming.

Mr. Ryan,

I believe he is educated enough to know–at least deep down–that humans have inalienable rights. I believe he is educated enough to know–at least deep down–that his actions are naturally criminal, that they invariably violate the natural rights of the masses, that he is himself violating natural law, and that there is absolutely no natural justice in his actions. He might deny natural law, of course, like so many do, but he’s educated enough to know–deep down–that he cannot justify his actions, that his station is wholly illegitimate, and that his acts are inherently unethical. Even if he suppresses this knowledge, and denies it to himself and to others, it is impossible that he does not experience this nagging feeling that his actions and overseer position are immoral, unethical, and criminal. Deep down, it is impossible for him to completely deny this and convince himself that his actions are in any natural or legitimate way lawful or just.

But, I don’t believe it necessarily follows from this that he is educated enough to know that his economic policies are necessarily and unavoidably destructive. We could debate whether or not he cares–I can’t truly be sure, since I do not know what goes through his head–but I would not be the least bit shocked to learn that he truly believes that his insane, Bush-on-steroids policies might have some actual positive effect, in at least either the short- or long-runs.

Mr. Mushindo,

He certainly is “wilfully malign,” lest he wouldn’t be dictating to people how they are to live their lives and spend their money. But I agree with you insofar as you intend to say that he may very likely believe some positive benefit could arise from his wilfully malign activities, even if we all recognise that interventionism does not work to benefit the masses.

Mr. Curious,

As I had intended to make–and thought I made–clear with my earlier reply, I do not believe that even those who did vote for the Criminal in Chief are “responsible” for his actions.

Respectfully,
Alex Peak

>[Taylor:] history is either a series of random accidents that occured without purpose or intent, or history is a series of “conspiracies” (not necessarily in the secretive sense, but not precluding secrets, either) between two or more individuals to secure a particular set of circumstances for a purpose.

“Just as a man’s actions are preceded and determined by some form of idea in his mind, so a society’s existential conditions are preceded and determined by the ascendancy of a certain philosophy among those whose job is to deal with ideas. The events of any given period of history are the result of the thinking of the preceding period. The nineteenth century—with its political freedom, science, industry, business, trade, all the necessary conditions of material progress—was the result and the last achievement of the intellectual power released by the Renaissance. The men engaged in those activities were still riding on the remnants of an Aristotelian influence in philosophy, particularly on an Aristotelian epistemology (more implicitly than explicitly).” Ayn Rand

Are you kidding, A. S. Peak? “If President Obama won’t take up our view of what a President should do then he’s an Evil Socialist”? But then why should those who voted for Obama not be responsible? They put him there.

Mr. Gil,

1. Yes, I’m completely and absolutely serious.

2. Please do not place words into my mouth. I do not believe a president should exist, and therefore the words you are putting into my mouth amount to this: “If Obama exists, he is an Evil Socialist.” But I do not believe Obama is either evil or socialist merely for existing. It is never evil to merely exist, but it is evil to wish to enslave one’s fellow man. Not only did Obama vote for such things as the USA PATRIOT Act reauthorisation and the REAL ID Act, he has repeatedly made clear his willingness to slaughter innocents with nuclear annihilation. People run for the presidency for only one of two reasons: (A) to decrease statism as much as humanly possible or (B) to gain a position of slavemaster over others. The vast majority of people who run for office are evil by definition.

3. I did not use the word “socialist” at all. The term is too vague, as it means different things to different people. Brad Spangler has, for example, made a strong case for calling Rothbard a “stigmergic socialist.” I don’t really care whether a person fancies herself a socialist or not, so long as she adheres to the non-aggression axiom.

4. I can see no proof that anyone on the planet voted “for” Obama. It seems more likely that most of the votes Obama received were votes against the Republican candidate.

5. The people who voted for Obama did not “put him there” (i.e. in office). That criminal band we call the state put him there. It merely chose to put him there rather than someone else because it took an opinion poll (on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November) and discovered that the public was least likely to take up arms against the criminal gang if it were to place him in the office. Voters have no real power and thus cannot be responsible for the election results. To hold the voters responsible is to pretend that the voters actually had the option of eliminating the state; but, of course, they did not, because the criminal band would never actually give them this option. As the popular quote often attributed to Emma Goldman goes, if voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.

Mr. Curious,

Voters do not put presidents into office.

Sincerely yours,
Alex Peak

Who’s puttting words into who’s mouth then?

“If Obama exists, he is an Evil Socialist.” – A. S. Peak.

What I wrote:

“If President Obama won’t take up our view of what a President should do then he’s an Evil Socialist?”

Apparently your worldview is such that it is evil to be non-Libertarian not merely different.

Mr. Gil,

The exact words you put into my mouth were, “If President Obama won’t take up our view of what a President should do then he’s an Evil Socialist.”

The point I made was that these words thus imply that I believe the following: “If Obama exists, he is an Evil Socialist.”

But I never said the original set of words, and thus the latter set of words cannot be necessarily claimed to reflect my actual beliefs.

As a matter of fact, neither set of words reflects my views.

You now go on to say, “Apparently your worldview is such that it is evil to be non-Libertarian not merely different.”

I find it interesting that you capitalised the word “Libertarian.” I honestly don’t care whether or not you support the party, and thus it can be accurately said that your statement regarding my world view also fails to reflect my actual beliefs.

Had you said “libertarian” instead of “Libertarian,” you would have been only a modicum closer to accurate. But, ultimately, you would still be failing to accurately portray my beliefs.

Libertarianism is an ideology, and I don’t much care whether or not a person believes in it. Beliefs are irrelevant, actions are what matter. One can hold the ideology of fascism, can believe that people are too free or should submit to some arbitraty executive, and still be a good, just person if she always refrains from initiating force or fraud. It’s aggression with which I have a problem, not belief structures per se. So, in short, it is neither my worldview that it is evil to be non-Libertarian nor non-libertarian. It is only unethical and naturally criminal to engage in aggression.

Mr. Curious,

I believe the point you raise, although fairly accurate, is irrelevant. The vote is nothing more than a statement of preference; it is not an actual grant of power, and those who happen to gain power remain wholly responsible for their own actions.

To exemplify the point, let me pose the following thought experiment: Let us say that Obama does something completely criminal (such as steal money from the people and redistribute it to auto manufacturers). This is a crime, and crimes ought to be punished. So, do we (A) hold everyone who voted for Obama responsible, imprisoning them all, while leaving Obama in office to do as he pleases? Or do we (B) arrest the criminal himself?

Reason dictates that if anyone is to be arrested, it would have to be the criminal himself.

If I give a criminal candy, do I become responsible for his crimes? Of course not. And one’s vote is more worthless than candy, since it (A) is not an actual grant of power, (B) legally has no market value, and (C) is not an actual “thing” in any sense of the word, but is instead simply a statement of principle, and thus something more akin to intellectual “property.”

If I say “all lawyers should die” and you go out and actually kill one, natural law dictates that you, not I, are responsible. Yet this statement, that “all lawyers should die” (not an actual view I hold, by the way), is no different than the statement, “Obama should be president.”

In case my thought experiment seems abstract and not practical to the real world, let me remind all here that there are actually persons out there who want to kill people in America for voting for the people for whom we vote. I have made the point elsewhere that bin Laden is flawed, that one cannot hold the people responsible for the actions of their rulers (despite what he claims), and that therefore the 9/11 attacks were wholly unjust (despite the fact that he has “justified” the attacks on these grounds). Of course I do not mean to imply that you or anyone else here defends bin Laden or his views, my point is merely to show that the thought experiment holds applicability to the real world.

To conclude, criminals are responsible for their own actions, and cannot pass the blame along to others. People need not be responsible for their beliefs, but merely their actions. And to blame society for the actions of specific persons is to give a free pass to those specific persons who committed the actions.

Regards,
Alex Peak