Collectivism is Inherently Selfish

Socialism, like many terms has morphed in its everyday meaning. I believe its central points have much in common with fascism and national socialism. They all contain central planning, authoritarian rule, and wealth redistribution. Statism is probably a better term but socialism will have to do even when the state has not yet seized all of the private sector. We have a growing mix of fascism and socialism pushed upon us from a federal government that must be reigned in. I despise it and will be involved in the difficult fight against it in the coming years.

 

He doesn't fool anyone. I believe he is a terribly frustrated wannabe. Perhaps he has been sheltered from responsibilities for most, if not all of his life. One runs into online bullies all the time. In real life they tend to be meek and soft.

I read Hayek's books on the weekends. None of them are particularly hard to read. So far all of what I have read made sense to me within the context of my political beliefs. I believe that governments must be constrained by well written Constitutions and run by honorable people. When those conditions are lacking we see tyranny grow. Hayek, Mises, Bastiat and others all had things to say that illuminate why central planning, taxation and spending is seldom the optimal way to grow a vibrant and robust economy. In real life I work as an engineer in command and control systems (among other things). Information tends to originate in inconvenient places. If one must move it to a central location before decisions are made a cost must be paid.

Where people are involved there is no central planner who can know enough to make decisions for all of us as well as we can for ourselves. In addition to the difficulty of the task there is the moral factor. We deserve to live free from coercion in most areas of our lives. I see that slipping away at an ever increasing rate. Are those comments economic? Do I need to be a university trained economist before I can think clearly about liberty, individual freedoms, the rising bureaucratic tyranny and the coming revolt?

Reiver is an unpleasant individual for reasons know only to himself.

 

Our federal Congress is only delegated the Power to Tax, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

 

I am unsure of what you read, but economics as a subject is not about liberty or freedom. It is about resources and how to make use of them. Road to Serfdom is a good read, however it is political and not economics.

http://www.auburn.edu/~garriro/amagi.htm <----this article explains what I mean by that. And if you took offense to Austrian wannabes or something I may have said, I apologize. It may come off as harsh. But there's people who read mises.org, Hayek and other Austrians' political works, but not their technical stuff, and present themselves in false manners online.

And everyone should be able to talk about political matters. And I despise people like Reiver who feel the need to talk down to others over these matters. It gums up discourse.

 

Spotted the error in his analysis yet? Distributed knowledge just can't be used to understand economic outcome. It cannot explain the importance of the visible hand. Its an obvious point, but Austrian wannabes need the help!

Tell that to the firm!

 

You offer a convincing example that some people can be wrong day after day after day. I am no longer surprised.

 

Hayek managed to be brilliant in his understanding of the failures of socialism. I did not bring up economics beyond the point that many very smart economists got it right on political theory. I do not read Hayek, Mises, Friedman and others because they were school trained economists. I read them because their works transcend economics. I have read a great deal. I have read a bit of Marx, Smith, Bastiat, Mises, Friedman, Hayek, and many others.

I took no offense. One does not need to be a university trained student of economics to understand the points. I read what they wrote because they make sense. I made no points about economics. I reference standing with Hayek, Mises, Bastiat, Friedman and others because they used their training in economics to make the large points about liberty.

We agree on both points.

 

Yes they did, they accomplished a complete misconstruction of Liberty as expressed by the Anarchists in order to free the individual from morality and ethics in their economic decision making by simply leaving out the most important part of Anarchist principles, personal responsibility to the group, i.e. society. In Anarchism maximum individual liberty can only come by taking on maximum individual responsibility. With Hayek et al, there is a maximization of individual liberty that excuses the individual from responsibility for actions that harm others on the exceedingly dangerous premise that responsibilities to others impede the maximization of liberty of the individual and should be discarded.

I believe that there is no other thinking that, if widely adopted, would more quickly and thoroughly result in the complete devolution and destruction of human society.

 

Note that you haven't got the means to respond. Perhaps you've accepted the bleedin obvious? The notion of distributed knowledge cannot explain the dominance of the visible hand of management

 

Can you give us some examples of firms who know more about what you are willing to pay for a good or service than you do?

I have accepted that you think you know more than you actually do. Show me by examples that your statements are something other than some half-learned lessons poorly restated.

 

That's an inane question isn't it? I deal with SMEs where the invisible hand is indeed key. Completely different to hierarchical organisations that replace the invisible hand with the visible hand of management.

I have accepted that you have read Hayek but do not understand the limitations of the approach.

 

Let's assume there is "open" competition and they have other bids that form a price range from which to choose from.

 

Boy I am glad I put him on my ignore list. Every new thread I find he's involved in, I find him to be just as pointless, repetitive and a waste of time to read.

 

He usually does not even say anything even. He just says "blah blah this is the unquestionable truth because I'm right" instead of explaining anything ever. When people ask him to show his work he opts out of it. It's truly terrible and atrocious.

 

Thank heavens for the ignore feature of this forum, eh? We can only talk to people worth talking to.

 

I just figured out the ignore feature on these forums. It was located in a different spot than forums I am used to. And now I will not have to read that kind of dross.

 

Can the the collectivism of Heaven, be selfish?

 

Society. Society is a big word. Most of society is clueless, stupid and lazy. Most of society cares more about their facebook or twitter page than they do about real life. IS this the society I should be caring about?

 

The same way that sharing can be selfish.

Illustration:
I have two apples. I decide to share and give you one of them. That is generous.
I see that you have two apples. I force, cajole or persuade you to share and give me one of them. That is selfish.

Things done to help others at your own expense are generous and commendable. Things done to better yourself at someone else's expense are selfish. If you are pushing collectivism in the hope that others will be forced to share with you, it is selfish. If you are pursuing collectivism to make it easier to give what you have to others, it is generous.

But then again, you can already give what you have to others, no need to force collectivism on anyone else. Thus the logical reason for someone to push collectivism is to improve their own position at the expense of someone else.

 

Sounds like a variation of lumpenproletariat!

 

How does your view work in the case of a well regulated militia and the security of a free State, or equality before the law under our republican form of Government?

 

That would be a totally unrelated subject from the subject as to how collectivism can be selfish. It is also off topic for this thread.

 

Why do you believe that, if Government requires sufficient socialism for a collective to exist?

 

When you read Hayek's critiques of central planning and the dangers it involves how did you come to the conclusion that it had anything to do with anarchy? What is it about you being able to choose for you and me choosing for me that frightens you?

I must conclude that you have not actually read any of Hayek's books.

 

The real problem is Austrian wannabes reading Hayek and then not being able to apply his analysis to economic phenomena. You're a classic example dear boy