About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - 5:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Does Marxism acknowledge the existence of risk?

No.

Marxism shows up after risk has been taken on, and starts from there to 'redistribute outcomes.'

What incentives are there to take on risk and run uphill? Marxists have two answers, and when the first is found insufficient to fund their pipe-dreams, the second always follows:

"Greedy people can't help themselves but to take on risk and run uphill; we just need to funnel some of that natural tendency to provide for our whims."

"The state's guns."



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - 5:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The Socialization of Risk:

Curt Schilling's Studio 38.

Solyndra.

The present Chevy Volt.

The Khmer Rouge.

Strongarm socialist generals running amok in Burma.

The Ba'ath Socialists running amok in Saddam's Iraq.

The Ba'ath Socialists running amok in Assad's Syria.

"We are all in this together."

"We are all one."

"Ein Volk....Ein Reich .... Ein Fuerer."

Education and Reconditioning Camps for those who might not line up and march behind fundamental change.

United We Stand...not United It Stands. We, plural. Not it, singular, except as a nation, singular, of free people, freely forming our free associations, plural, 50 states and even more societies and even more families, plural.

E pluribus unum; from many, one (nation.)

From many.

The collectivists/tribalists have 'progressively' turned all of that on its ears.





Post 2

Wednesday, December 12, 2012 - 12:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Excellent article, Dr. Machan!

A similar theme appears when the subject is examined from a psychological point of view.

It is healthy for people to assert control over their environment, and it is our nature to exercise a healthy discrimination to select the best option of those available. And when we balance our respect for others with these desires to control for the best outcomes, we naturally stop our actions before they interfere with another's ability to choose.

The statist elites don't respect that natural process in others, and their drive to be in control is so great that they find all possible ways to be in control for everyone - which means 'of everyone.' They go for centralized planning to implement it and they use trickery to disguise their drive to be in control - telling everyone it is necessary for some made-up reason, or altruistically desirable.

We discover scientific laws to improve our control over reality, they make up pseudo-sciences to justify control over people.

Psychologically, statist elites are control freaks who have advocate use of government force to get their way. They create and argue theories to justify this force and to hide the psychological (and moral) truths. Some are probably acting out of a deep insecurity (normal control freak motivation) and many probably have a deep-seated anger or even hatred for others that makes it easier to justify this constant war to force others to give in to their control. It is easier to treat another badly, if you first diminish him in your mind, and fill yourself with disdain for him. Then they can feel superior - elites.

Because they won't ever address their psychological motivations, they will never succeed in reducing those anxieties, fears, or angers, hence they'll never be satisfied with any a given degree of control - and will always want more.
-----------

Fred,

Marxists hold the concept of risk as a subconscious bogey-man, a source of deep-rooted insecurity - for them this is an emotional issue. They don't have the confidence that they can deal with reality head-on like engineers and business men. Instead, the subconscious motivation is that by controlling others who can be effective... maybe that will reduce their anxiety. "Others" are their reality. The "Collective" is the universe. Social metaphysicians.

Post 3

Thursday, December 13, 2012 - 4:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dr. Machan,

What a great essay! [Kyle, take note, this is the essay to show folks when talking about capitalism!]

 (There are advocates of the free market who would deny this on grounds that no objective values exist. But this is self-defeating, since they also hold that the free market is of objective value to us.)
Good point, is it aimed at the Austrian economists, or just the post-modern, gut-driven pseudo-economists, like Paul Krugman?*

The suggestion advanced in turn is that we should have a central governing body of people who will make certain that such mistakes do not happen—even if it takes the use of firing squads to accomplish this noble result. Yet if the premise is true—that people make mistakes by over and underrating others’ work and products—then the conclusion cannot follow—that people will make certain that such mistakes do not happen. This is because what people will do is tied to what they can do. The body of select people is no less a body of people than the body of people that makes up the free market place!
Bingo!


It is the view that this select group of individuals can and will do better than free people in voluntary association at determining what is good or bad within the realm of production and exchange.
Though it may not be saying much, I couldn't have said this better myself ... though Lord knows I tried.

:-)

Ed

*Krugman once said that Obama shouldn't do what Krugman wants him to do economically, because not enough others would agree -- and it would then cost Obama the election (because the ignorant masses, not having been indoctrinated enough, would not like Obama's choices). Talk about a superiority (God-) complex!

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/13, 5:02am)


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.