Author: leon

Individualism: True And False; A Review

The following review is for the Article “Individualism: True and False”, which can be found in the book: “Individualism and Economic Order” by F. A. Hayek. The Mises Institute graciously provides a pdf or ebook copy of this book for free here.

F. A. Hayek

When slightly younger me was in college I was taking my required History of Economic Thought course. I had always been free market leaning, but had been a bit put off by Neo-Classical Economics. When my instructor, a real deal Marxist/Moaist, taught us about the “Cambridge Capital Controversy“, I was a completely shaken. I knew I couldn’t stick with the Neo-Classical framework, as it was founded on circular reasoning. Fortunately, the professor had assigned us to read one book by an influential economist, and present it to the class. While scanning through the list of approved books I saw Individualism and Economic Order by F. A. Hayek. It looked right up my alley. I had heard of Hayek before, but never read any of his works. I knew he was a free market economist, but also a “Gold Bug”, so younger me had avoided him as a wrong-thinker. Now that my faith in those who had derided him for his monetary views was destroyed, why not give him a shot?

Reading and studying this book, which is a series of related articles by Hayek, was a pivotal moment for my political ideological growth, and in particular the first Article “Individualism: True and False”. What Hayek talked about made thoughts I had already been having clarify. It resolved conflicts I had been tussling with and urged me to investigate more into him and the Austrian school of thought. And that is why i am today reviewing the primary article from the book.

Individualist oppressing minority group, circa 2019, colorized

In “Individualism: True and False”, Hayek sets the tone for the rest of the book, arguing for the social system of Individualism. But before he can do that, he needs to clear some things up. You see, in Hayek’s mind there is a lot of confusion in the world about what Individualism is. Some of that confusion is created intentionally, by the opponents of individualism, and some springs from the fact that there are two distinct philosophical lines of thought that claim the title of Individualism. Hayek (in a true Scottish fashion) labels these as “True” individualism, and “False” individualism.

For “True” individualism, Hayek sees it’s roots in the Scottish Enlightenment and subsequent British philosophers. Thinkers like Adam Smith, David Hume and Edmund Burke as well as Lord Acton and Alexis de Tocqueville, are the foremost paragons of this type of individualism. The ideas espoused by these men establish a theory of society in which ” there is no other way toward an understanding of social phenomena but through our understanding of individual actions directed toward other people and guided by their expected behavior.” In other words, it is a theory of society, that sees the individual actor as paramount. (It is interesting to note that this is in stark contrast to a common criticism that individualism sees men as isolated individuals, best understood without the context of society). To these philosophers, while human reason was interesting, and could play a role in individual decision making, it was neither paramount or necessary to their theory of society. In fact, they argued that the greatest institutions of man were mostly created spontaneously from the interactions of independent actors, creating a system greater than the designs of those participating in it.

In contrast, Hayek saw a “False” or “Rationalistic” individualism. This theory, espoused by continental philosophers like Rousseau, and the physiocrats, saw all discoverable order as the result of a Rational Mind. To them the individuals rationality was the pinnacle of humanity. Any system that was not rationally planned or designed was from the start inferior to a planned system. This system of thought, however almost always lead to the worst aspects of collectivism. Even today you can hear it’s echos in calls for Communism. An article in favor of “Disaster Communism”, has the author arguing “Climate change represents the biggest threat humanity has ever faced. Why does it seem that we cannot do anything about it? Because the productive forces we created are totally outside our rational control.”.

If only we could know what he was thinking.

Once he has cleared up and segregated these two competing forms of “Individualism”, Hayek is able to tussle with many common critiques and show why they are misplaced. I would, however be remiss to explain these here, and leave their discovery as an exercise for you to read.

This Article is a fantastic primer for anyone who may be amiable to libertarian thought, but is not so simplistic as to be overlooked by those who are already on board. It is fairly simple, and does not dive into any deep economic concepts that could be confusing. Recommended age: 17 +. The rest of his book is very good as well, though can get a bit technical and dry at times.

4.5 / 5

November 15, 2019
How to Win Arguments and Irritate People

This is not debate

I spent a few years in high school on the debate team. My event of choice was Mock Congress, and I was never particularly any good. You see, in mock congress, the style of the event is much less about debate and more about your ability to confidently give speeches (factual or otherwise), and politically maneuver to be elected to chairmanship so that you could run the meeting. These concepts sailed over my very naive and idealistic teenage mind. It was this, in part, that caused me to become disaffected and quit the team. However I’m older now, and a bit more cynical and perceptive. Luckily in my crotchety age I’ve been able to apply the things I learned in high-school, to my professional career in order to push my opinions and influence decisions. I hope to impart what little knowledge I have to you my glib friends, in this and possibly more articles. Why? Because weather you like them or not, decisions will be made around you that impact you. What color to paint the house. What language to implement the newest management request. Whether to leave a website and form your own libertarian website. Decisions will be made, and if you care about them, then having the best tools to ensure a favorable outcome will always be helpful.

The most effective tool for winning a debate

First thing you need to know is that a true debate is not about convincing the person you are arguing against to agree with you. It’s about convincing the spectators that you have the better argument. So the key to winning a debate is remembering your audience, and gearing any argument, logic or rhetorical tool towards your audience. That being said, that is not what I want to talk about today. Today I want to disucss a trick that you can use that will help you be a better debater (perhaps even a master debater?). That tool keeping a record of the flow of a debate.

The gaze of a man who knows his audience

When I go to meetings, especially those where I know, or expect there will be some debate about a decision, I make sure to have a notebook and a pen. I’ll keenly listen to any points people will make and jot down what I understand as their key arguments. Rather than trying to come up with rebuttals in the moment, I try to keep attention to the arguments being laid out. If something jumps out at me as a weakness in the argument or a counter-point, I’ll jot it down next where i wrote down their initial point. Then when i have the opportunity to speak, I use my notes to make sure i hit on the key points that respond to those presented by the opposition.

Keeping the flow of the debate is just what it might sound like. It means listening to your opponents arguments, understanding them and recording them. This allows you to quickly understand what your opponent is putting up as his defense and serves as a tool to help collect your rebuttals. It makes sure you don’t let your opponent get away with a stolen base, and finally it helps you keep the debate on track, and keep your opponent from pivoting without you realizing it. But perhaps most importantly it helps you recognize that the other side has a point, and that you understand where they are coming from, but then explain why they are wrong/misguided/misunderstanding what the situation is. This does a lot to endear you and your point to the audience. No one likes a pig headed know-it-all who ignores any argument or data point that is in contrast to their views. By actually listening to your opponent, you are better able to control the debate, and ensure that your views are given the best visibility.

And That’s it. It’s a really simple technique, but I’ve had an incredible amount of success when employing it. Mostly because it helps keep you organized and lets you be above the rush of the debate, and not carried away in the currents of it.

Not that Flo

Of course, maybe I’m wrong. And this isn’t an important tool or even one anyone should use. Feel free to debate me about it in the comments. And let me know if you would like any more possible articles.

September 24, 2019
The Bronzed Man Collapse: Chapter 1 A Prelude

3539 CE: New Sydney University Department of Antiquities

New Sydney University, Department of Antiquities

…Don’t be fooled, claims by [corrupted] and other members of the one percent. Their privilege is on full display when they say that they don’t see themselves as better than those poorer than themselves. The rich and super wealthy can cruise through life without a thought about their place in society. … ignorant of the fact that the most disadvantaged must constantly remember that they are less than the elites who don’t even recognize their existence…

When Romneyesqe platitudes … ignoring the lived experiences …

The curator examined the artifact again and again. Even after several years of study, Late Period English was difficult for her to understand. However many times she tried to read this sermon, this passage twisted her in knots.

Romneyesqe

That word was giving her particular troubles. Despite many attempts she could not find a single source to compare the meaning of the word. Even searching for the root Romney pulled in no results. Jotting it down on her notepad she moved on with the text.

… Whiteness demands that others overlook the vast inequality it generates and absolve each individual of the crimes they perpetuate. They insist that by making empty assertions of class-blindness, that they are free from any spot of culpability in the system they benefit from… destroying and oppressing people of color and the most disadvantaged.

This was a common articulation in the holy texts, and this was not the oldest form. The piece was dated to the Early to Mid 21^st Century, with similar passages being well known. Yet it was the first derivation that she had seen to absolutely equate whiteness with class. No hint of metaphor, but a one-to-one relationship. It was this passage that attracted her to this artifact. She felt it held a key to unlocking more information regarding the collapse of the ancient world.

A 5 minute warning popped up on the terminal. She quickly scanned the document again for any additional words to cross check, and then disconnected. As she got up to leave, a thought flashed through her mind. Perhaps he would know. She disliked the Maslow, but the more she thought about it the stronger she felt that she had to ask him for help…

She entered the Department of Anglo studies and walked down the long hall. The Stone Floor clacked as she stepped across it revealing her presence to the entire building, but nobody stirred to greet her. On the wall was a large board with a directory pinned to it. She scanned down the list. “Dr. Henrie Maslow: 115“. She proceeded down the hall. As she approached room 115 she could hear a muffled discourse before the door swung open and a young red-faced man walked out of room 115. Peering in, there was an older gentleman, white mustache half concealing a wicked smile. Their eyes locked, and he sat up straight.

Dr. Henrie Maslow

“Well, what brings our beloved Curator to my humble office?”

“Is this a bad Time?”, she hoped.

“Hardly, that was merely an … academic discussion between a student and his professor”. He motioned her in with his hand. “What can I do for you?”
“It’s about a passage I’ve been studying, part of the Mother Jones collection, It has been particularly difficult to understand, it’s ancient from the Early Collapse”

“Hmm, yes the religious texts often are, especially from that period” He noted. She rolled her eyes and continued. “Yes i was hoping you could help me out with a few words.”. Maslow looked her over, “You know I had heard you were back at your studies of the Collapse, isn’t that what lost you your last job?”. She began to remember why she didn’t want to come see him. “Are you going to help or not?”

“Of course, of course, but kindly leave me out of your acknowledgments in your next paper, I have a reputation”. He may have been teasing but it still stung. She pulled out her notepad, sat down and they began to work.

July 23, 2019
A Short Thought On Taxation and Theft

Tom Woods did a recent show on an article arguing that Taxation was not Theft (link: https://tomwoods.com/ep-1434-taxation-isnt-theft-or-slavery/). I thought it was a rather good episode, however I think Tom misses a point that I would like to add.

First let’s discuss the argument. I would attribute the argument to the original author, however I’ve seen it made by several socialist thinkers and so I don’t know who made it originally. It has come into vogue on the left as a counter talking point to the “Taxation is Theft” mantra. Here is what they say: Taxation isn’t theft because theft implies taking something from someone who has a moral right to something. They then claim that the poor have a stronger moral right to a wealthy person’s property than the wealthy because we have to weigh in a person’s right to eat, have shelter over a person’s right to their property.

Tom does a fantastic job on arguing why such thinking is not only morally bankrupt, but also just unworkable. I’ll leave that for him to discuss in his episode. However, what I am going to say is that even on their own terms, that argument does not justify our tax regime.

First of all this argument would only justify taxing the “rich.” However, our current tax system taxes the poor and wealthy alike. Whether that be gas taxes, sales taxes or FICA taxes, everyone is forced to pay into the system. Now, one could argue that the poorest get more out in direct welfare benefits than they put in, but that is really only true for the poorest group of people. There are plenty of people who would be considered poor that pay into the system rather than get out. Under the argument supplied taxation would not be justified.

A possible second argument is that everyone but the super wealthy in the country receives more than they put in because of all the services that are granted, things like roads, defense, and grants for studies about global warming’s disproportionate effects on women. To some this may seem plausible. But it is entirely beside the point. The argument to justify taxation as not theft only justifies taxation in the pursuit of redistribution of wealth from rich to poor. If taxation isn’t theft because the rich don’t have a moral right to their food in the face of the plight of the poor, it is theft because the government takes the money that should (according to this argument) go to the poor and instead spends it on something else.

Now I can understand why this argument isn’t the first one given by Tom (and other libertarians I’ve heard counter it). But I think it is a particularly strong one because it doesn’t let progressives talk out of both sides of their mouth. On one hand they justify taxation by saying the poor have a moral right to the property, but on the other hand they advocate all sorts of spending and taxation schemes that are still not justified by their logic.

Anyway feel free to tell me I’m wrong.

July 4, 2019
I Used to be a Libertarian, but then someone did something I don’t like

5 years ago I would proudly pronounce that I was a Libertarian to anyone who would listen. I still remember how good it would feel to be an enigma during political debates. Just as someone would think they had me figured out as a conservative, I’d drop drug legalization on them. If someone thought I leaned left, I would quickly bring up the need for fiscal responsibility.

This was all well and good until one day at work 5 months ago. I was out to lunch with some co-workers, when we started talking about a recent firing. One of my co-workers remarked that she knew about the firing beforehand, the CEO had told her about it a few months in advance. I was disgusted. My co-worker was not a manager and had no business knowing about the employment status of my fired friend. Not only was this unprofessional, it was morally wrong.

That night I met up with my cop friend and asked him about it. When he said that there was no crime in what the CEO had done, I was incredulous. “Aren’t you a libertarian?” he asked, “Don’t you believe that the CEO is free do do what he wants?”. Almost immediately my heart filled with dread. I quickly said goodbye to my friend and went home.

For the next few days I struggled with my beliefs. Had I been wrong all along? I liked a lot of what libertarianism is about, but I hadn’t realized that it meant people could do anything, including things I really didn’t like. After many painful hours I came to the conclusion that I had to cast off my erroneous beliefs. Just as a scientist must discard a theory once it has been proven wrong. Clearly libertarianism can’t be right if it could be used to justify things I knew were wrong.

Unfortunately libertarianism is growing in popularity, and becoming ever more powerful. It permeates our political and social lives. Many people feel disoriented arguing with them, so I want to provide them with 3 arguments that will shut-up any libertarian.

1. We live in a Libertarian Utopia:
This is quite a powerful argument, as it quickly puts the perennially whining freedom lovers on defense. Libertarians like to say they have little to no political power in the United States. But as soon as you point out that there are thousands of things you don’t like that are still legal, they will be scratching their heads. Some libertarians are adamant that the United States is not a libertarian paradise. Very well, quietly point out that places like Libya, Syria and Iraq had their governments destroyed, and now they are terrible places.

Plastic Straws prove Libertarian patriarchy!

2. Libertarians don’t have a plan:
Everyone is a critic, but only the truly inspired can come up with a plan. This is a good argument to bring up when you are talking about a plan to right an injustice in the world. Often a libertarian will bring up hypothetical issues or highlight some imperfections (as if we ever thought our plans would be perfect). But if you challenge them to come up with a solution they will often dodge the question by saying we should “Leave it to individuals to work out voluntarily”. Don’t they see that’s what got us into the mess in the first place?

Libertarian plan for the future

3. Libertarianism is Irrational:
This is a fantastic argument. Most libertarians deem themselves the most rational people in the world. Well quickly point out to them that by leaving things to Individuals they are advocating the least rational plan. Clearly just letting the chaos of the market “sort it out” will result in inefficiencies, but if we take a step back and look at what is going on we can come up with a rational plan to fix the things we don’t like in society. Rationalism requires that we abandon libertarian thought.

February 27, 2019