I listened to a young (24), fiercely individualistic, libertarian friend speak about casting his vote for Mitt Romney. My pal may not be finely tuned to every philosophical nuisance, but he lives and breathes individualism. His backbreaking work as a proprietor of a small business means, moreover, that local politics are vital to his bottom-line. My friend explained to me why he would be voting to keep the toxic Dems out of office in our state, and why he supported Romney.
Although wedded to reality, columnist Jack Kerwickis “finely tuned to philosophical nuisance.” As mentioned in “On Living In Sin: The Sin of Abstraction,” Jack and I parted company over his decision to vote Romney. However, I admire Jack for “mixing it up”—for his commitment to arguing the issues and making pragmatic decisions in the rigorous and vigorous Rothbardian tradition.
His individual achievements outside politics show that Mr. Romney is nothing like “Bronco Bamma,” who has always been at full throttle for the distributive state.
Rights-based arguments are seldom made by members of the media and their guests. In explaining what a (semantic) aberration the term gouging is John Stossel opted to privilege the utilitarian angle. So did his guests.
Like any voluntary exchange of goods, “gouging” amounts to free people exchanging property to which they hold title. Each relinquishes something he values less (money/goods/labor) for something he values more (money/goods/labor).
John Stossel and guests prefer to stick to purely utilitarian economics. That’s the mindset that prevails.
I’d like to hear our side argue for freedom by saying that, whether free markets work or not is secondary to the unalienable, immutable, rights of men. It so happens that—surprise!—upholding the absolute rights of the individual to life, liberty and property works very well. Wealth redounds to all.
Bless Stossel for his efforts to promote economic literacy, over decades. However, I listened to Steve Horowitz last night, and then “muted” when Stossel made the perennial decision that guides the dueling perspectives political panel.
Rather than let Steve enlighten, Stossel allowed the reality denier to hog the stage with a perversion, not a version, of the truth.
In a free market, the institute of private property ensures that we have prices. “Prices are like a compass: pegged to supply and demand they ensure the correct allocation of resources. Without market prices, supply and demand cannot be brought into balance and, by extension, consumer needs cannot be satisfied. Conversely, in socialized systems there are no prices because there is no private property. Absent such knowledge, misuse, misallocation and mismanagement of capital are inevitable.”
In the previous post, we mentioned an economic fallacy that gets floated during major disasters. It is that “Storms Create Jobs.” The idea of price gouging is another example of erroneous economic thinking that creeps into the discussion, especially during natural- and government-generated disasters.
… there are some things politicians of both parties can agree. Price gouging, for example, is wrong. New York Attorney General Eric Scheiderman, a Democrat, wants you to know it. But this isn’t just for soft-hearted liberals. New Jersey’s notoriously tough conservative governor, Chris Christie, also put out a weekend press release warning that “price gouging during a state of emergency is illegal” and that complaints would be investigated by the attorney general. Specifically, Garden State merchants are barred from raising prices more than 10 percent over their normal level during emergency conditions (New York’s anti-gouging law sets a less precise definition, barring “unconscionably extreme” increases).
Even a progressive like Yglesias is able to grasp some of the natural laws of economics. A sharp rise in prices to coincidence with reduced supply and an increased demand for a good signals the need to conserve scare resources:
The basic imperative to allocate goods efficiently doesn’t vanish in a storm or other crisis. If anything, it becomes more important. And price controls in an emergency have the same results as they do any other time: They lead to shortages and overconsumption. Letting merchants raise prices if they think customers will be willing to pay more isn’t a concession to greed. Rather, it creates much-needed incentives for people to think harder about what they really need and appropriately rewards vendors who manage their inventories well.
Still, some truths escape liberals (and most conservatives). Prices are the prerogative of private property.
In a free market, the institute of private property ensures that we have prices. “Prices are like a compass: pegged to supply and demand they ensure the correct allocation of resources. Without market prices, supply and demand cannot be brought into balance and, by extension, consumer needs cannot be satisfied. Conversely, in socialized systems there are no prices because there is no private property. Absent such knowledge, misuse, misallocation and mismanagement of capital are inevitable. Prices are the street signs of the economy.”
Every day that Christie is rhetorically hugging Obama is a day when he’s not making the case for Romney. Christie went even further in an interview on Fox and Friends Tuesday morning, professing little interest when told Romney might visit to tour some of the damage in his state. “I have no idea” [if Romney is coming], “nor am I the least bit concerned or interested,” Christie said. “I have a job to do in New Jersey that is much bigger than presidential politics.”
Way back (in 02.13.08), I mentioned a very old suggestion I had made on a discussion list of unconventional individualists. It was this: “I’d give up my vote if that would guarantee that all women were denied the vote.” (Also here, under “Feminism & Feminization.”)
Now, don’t get confused. From the fact that one acknowledges that most women should not have the vote—it doesn’t follow that certain individual ladies are not blessed with great intelligence and should be respected for it. (This is the error of some ultra-conservatives in conceptualizing about certain women.)
On the topic of vaginas voting, the highly intelligent Ann Coulter counseled the same, during a riveting TV segment with the “retarded” and insufferably pompous Piers Morgan. (At one point, Ms. Coulter just glared at this idiot, who refused to talk about anything other than one of her tweets, and who, whenever she spoke, stopped the conversation to demand why she could not be as reasonable all the time, as if cerebrally compromised liberals like himself could detect reason.)
What prompted Ms. coulter’s comment on female suffrage (how we suffer for it) was the Hos for O commercial, in which a representative of the pox of a cohort known as young women (Lena Dunham) likened voting for Obama to her first sexual experience. (Do you allow your daughters to carry on like this?)
The whole thing is repulsive down to the exaggerated, affectatious hand movements (what’s with that bit of bad breeding?).
Watch:
To the Nineteenth Amendment, which granted women the vote, add the 26th Amendment. It was smuggled into the Constitution by statute, and it artificially swelled the ranks of Democratic voters by millions of 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds. While they don’t work for a living, youngsters get to vote for dibs on the livelihood of those who do.
Naturally, CNN, which employes an army of “Harpies Hot For Big Daddy O,” went and axed a segment that offered up evidence that hormones sway female voting patterns. Hormones and a propensity for sentimentality sway most decisions women make. And this proclivity is encouraged in a culture that equates whimsy, capriciousness and silliness with creativity and individualism.
BJS: Sigh.. big sigh…. I’m glad I don’t live there anymore. Rather the uncertainty of Africa then the completely plasticized construct of american political/social thought and action. We have no leadership and a pate’ -brained populace, so it seems. IM: BJS: Perceptive points you make. Thanks. I must say that I understand what you say when I listen to your average SA little (black) girl speak about her future, usually in good English and with the sweet innocence our kids have lost (thanks to their parents and pedagogues).
