Yes. I agree.

Recently I read Count Heinrich von Einsiedel’s book, “The Shadow of Stalingrad- being the diary of a temptation.” It was published in 1952. the author was a pilot who got shot down and captured by the Russians at Stalingrad. It deals with his experiences as a prisoner gradually realising he can’t justify his actions to his captors (they asked why he was involved in attacking the USSR). He becomes a communist before finally realising that system was even worse (it being even more savage and corrupt than the German national socialism he started out with).

What is striking is how Heinrich never bothered to consider what it is he is actually involved in doing as he flies air-cover and straffing and bombing raids during the nazi invasion of Russia. It is only after he gets interrogated that he begins to feel shame at what he has been up to. He can’t justify it as he never thought about it in any depth. He faces the same trouble a second time when he sees what it is that communism is actually about.

This guy was a well educated man from a great family. He falls into the trap of not thinking about what he is doing and ends up with decades of his life wasted. He just goes along with the flow. Perhaps this is what so many people are up to these days.

Of great concern is what occurs after a serious recession/depression starts and the statists start blaming a “market failure”. Last time around it ended up with a war. Then there were decades of regional unrest and mutually assured destruction.

Perhaps people these days concede far more than Nock’s 5% when they turn to the govt to alleviate every problem or discomfort that confronts them. In this regard they are well inferior to the likes of the 5% intellectual.

Sione

“Anyway, attempts to attack any idea based on pseudo-analogies with completely unrelated things from nature are destined to fail.”

Which is why YOU should avoid doing it, little man!

Sione

You seem incapable of telling the truth, or understanding it. I didn’t introduce any vaccine analogy – Nock did it by referring to “strictly limited implantation of tuberculosis.” It’s not my fault that this particular “implantation” is called BSG vaccine, making Nock’s attempt very funny, and at the same time revealing your ignorance and a baseless arrogance.

Anyway, attempts to attack any idea based on pseudo-analogies with completely unrelated things from nature are destined to fail.

It’s interesting that you bring up monetary fraud and how best to cope with it. Personally, I expect it to end in a hyperinflationary depression, in which case one would do very well to borrow now at what will be incredibly low interests rates and invest the money in precious metals.

Heck, even now, had you taken out a home equity loan at the beginning of last year and bought silver, you’d be up around 40%. So just imagine how you’d make out if silver went to $50 or $100 over the next few years (not at all unlikely) as interest rates skyrocketed. You’d be paying back your loan with chump change and reaping windfall profits along the way.

On the other hand, you’d be doing so in a world turned upside down, in which case you’d need more than a nice stash of shiny to see you through — i.e., you’d need savings in the form of food, fuel, and other essentials, precisely as some of the regulars over at the USA Gold Discussion Forum — http://www.usagold.com/cpmforum/default.html — are constantly advising.

Who knows what the future holds, of course, but I for one think it’s the purest folly to believe that our near-century of monetary fraud — certainly the past 35 years of totally irredeemable paper currency — can last much longer. It’s the Mother of All Ponzis, after all, and therefore the longer the powers that be are able to keep it going, the worse its aftermath will be and the longer will it last.

One’s thing’s for sure, though: The government, counting on the people’s cluelessness about money, will blame it on “market failure,” in which case “five-percent Statism” will be about 95% shy of the mark.

At first I thought that people considered government in the same sense that they considered a local shopping centre or a medical centre or plumbing supply depot etc. Hence govt was an organisation constructed to undertake a specialised task. Most of them seemed to be amenable to the argument that govt had gone a little “out of control.”

It is when you question the need for government they get concerned or even scared. Take away their local shops and they don’t mind. Take away the local hospital or climic and they’re a little annoyed but they don’t really object. Take away the govt and you have an amazing amount of passionate resistance. The only thing I can put it down to is that the education system and the media have accomplished their tasks perfectly.

I often wonder what to do about the impending troubles. First up my expectation is that parts of the USA or Europe or Asia are definately not places to be. Isolated and relatively small communities are where one should settle. Stay away from the madness of crowds.

One of my friends insists that since the monetary system is such a fraud one should command as much debt as possible and when the system fails simply walk away from it! After all it’s only marks on paper. Others counsel careful savings and management of key assets. You can well imagine the arguments that rage between the former and the latter!

I remember years ago when a well known politician in New Zealand was asked on TV what he thought about euthanasia (then a controversial topic) he answered, “I reckon we should look after our own kids first.” Many thought he was a fool but he’d successfully avoided being drawn into a debate he didn’t want a part of. He’d also provided some interesting advice in a subtle way. There is wisdom in his comment at more than one level. Certainly one should concentrate on looking after one’s immediate family and closest friends first. I can see the logic in that. My kids are not getting indoctrinated with all the BS that’s taught at local schools.

I guess in the end it’s a matter of “perfect your own life” and get on with that!

Sione

PS

I’ve found, as you no doubt have too, that outside of libertarian circles it’s almost impossible to question the existence of the state and the notion that it not only isn’t necessary but is the least necessary of all human institutions. Instead, only the state’s policies can be questioned and even then only from a partisan political perspective.

Yes, one or another TV commentator will occasionally be critical of both sides (Tucker Carlson, for example), but never do they stop and question the system itself. Never is the possibility that the US Constitution might have sewn the seeds of its own destruction discussed, much less whether constitutionalism itself might be fatally flawed.

And while Larry Kudlow opens his CNBC program by saying that he “aims to be right on America, right on capitalism, and right on the money,” never is a guest allowed on who will say that precisely because Kudlow is WRONG on the money, he is accordingly wrong on capitalism and wrong on America. Sure, Fed policy can be questioned but not the existence of the Fed itself, much less the concept of central, fractional-reserve banking.

What to do? Personally, I don’t waste my time with such matters in “polite” company and concentrate instead on being as loyal as I can to my family and closest friends by telling them exactly how I feel, citing my reasons why and hoping that when push comes to shove, as it inevitably will, at least a few of them will have seen the light and prepared themselves accordingly.

Granted, it may be, as with E over on another thread, that there’s no preparing for the horror that’s to come. On the other hand, however, who knows what effect mises.org might be having in the hinterland, as someone reads a post like this and points a friend or family member to it.

Who knows but that Time’s Person of the Year is not only deserving of the title but is poised to achieve that which would have otherwise been thought impossible — i.e, saying yes to “digital democracy” so as to eventually say no to the state.

It’s just a numbers game, after all, the only question being how many Persons of the Year it will take to tip the balance.

You are not telling the truth again. It was you who introduced the analogy of the vaccine to this thread.

Speaking of introducing irrelevant and faulty analogy, it was you who did exactly that when arguing patents and copyrights recently on another thread. You introduced the farming analogy remember. Anyway one hopes you take your own advice in future.

Returning to Nock. His critique of the 5 percenters is right. They give up principle by granting that little bit of statism. Perhaps they become frightened by where their arguments are headed- the conclusion of their arguments is taking them towards anarchism (an uncomfortable thought). Perhaps there is a cherished idea they wish to protect even while their own arguments are leading to the conculsion that the idea is wrong. Hence they retreat a little. the trouble is that 5% is a lot!

I know some people who are like that in business. They know exactly what needs to be achieved and how to do it. Somehow they lack the last few percent, the confidence (perhaps) to commit to action and hence the ability to do what needs to be done. They never get ahead. Other people pass them by. It’s frustracting for them and sad to see. 95% is not 100%.

Sione

Isn’t that called vaccination?

Sasha, Nock was using this analogy to illustrate a point. I can certainly concede that it was not a GOOD analogy, as you stated, and your point is well taken, but I think the use of a much better analogy (the one I often use in discussions) would have sounded outrageous in Nock’s time: A little bit of State is like being raped just a bit.

This is reason why I try not to be too strict, or nit pick in the extreme, with essayists of yesteryear.

My advantage is in sticking to strict applications of economic axioms and usually not engaging in silly discussions on whether some political system resembles vaccine or cyanide. That’s just too close to psychosis and I’m only comfortable about laughing at some funny attempts, like Nook’s with TBC.

But of course the debate is so rarely framed in these terms that what passes for political discourse today is but a same-sided coin being endlessly flipped, with no thought that since the total state has been tried, only to fail miserably, it’s only fair that the non-state get its chance.

That the state chooses not to play fair, of course, is really all one needs to know about its existence.

About a breather: maybe…

And maybe we could start talking about Mr. Shaw.

As to “verbal attacks,” whoever else may have engaged in them, I’m not one of them. And if “hatred of science and pluralism” (by which I assume you mean openness to other points of view) were the rule rather than the exception on this site, neither I nor most of the others who regularly post here would even bother visiting it.

Maybe you need a breather.

I did not equate “strictly limited implantation” (of tuberculosis) with vaccination… The science did that in the early 20th century.

I simply asked “Isn’t that called vaccination?” And I smiled at this contradictory and unsuccessful attempt of analogy.

The fact that I get verbal attacks for doing that (I even expected them) only proves my point about some medieval tendencies here. If such hatred of science and pluralism prevails, the quality of this place is going to diminish.

Enough about that please.

Exactly. Good essay.

You equated “strictly limited implantation” with vaccination, and I countered with what I thought was more appropriate — i.e., limited government is like being “a little bit pregnant.”

I remain at loss as to why arguing thus would “allow anything to be published without any critical comment.”

I didn’t make any analogies, so there was no need to counter anything. I was only making a point that we should avoid quasi-analogies with natural sciences (because we criticize mathematical economists about this). We should especially avoid those analogies that contradict us and make people laugh.

My whole point was that I cannot say a simple, scientifically proven fact – without some “guardians” immediately attacking me and telling about my “pig ignorance.” And then they’ll tell me that “ad hominem” won’t get me far, when I say that some of us are not high school dropouts, without ever saying anything bad about anyone.

Regards

“With that kind of logic Mr. White, Mises.org will allow anything to be published without any critical comment – until it looses its importance and becomes a laughingstock.”

I haven’t the foggiest idea what you mean by this, but in any case, I was simply countering your analogy with one that I considered, given virtually all of recorded history, to be more appropriate — i.e., little doses of the state do not protect society against it but merely sew the seeds for the monster it inevitably becomes.

24 / 14 * 20.67 = a little more than 35 dollars.

With some justification, it could be said that President Roosevelt bequeathed a fourteen-carat dollar to the U.S. in 1933. (14 plus a fifth, if you want to shave it his way by a miniscule amount.) Given this, I suppose Nock didn’t really have it in for President Roosevelt, et. al. at the time that e wrote this essay.

Fair enough. I made an error. I should have not have referred to a virus but a bacterium when writing about tuberculosis vaccines. Nevertheless the point about the substance of your comments stand. You argue concretes in isolation and evade explaining premise and principle altogether. You also spend a lot of effort dealing with non-essentials.

In this thread you attempted to make a critique about Nock which was false (error of evading the context) and you were pulled up on it.

I note that once again you are arguing non-essential rather than facing the central point at issue. As others have demonstrated, you are dishonest.

Sione

PS No Sasha I was never a high school drop out. Ad hominem is not going to get you far. You really are getting desperate to rely on that.

Now I could list my qualifications, if you think it necessary but is that essential?