Can I blame the politicians and, if so, then what does that mean?

Warning: This controversial question, while sincere, is not for the faint-hearted. Read on only at the risk of being offended or outraged at the very question itself.

I want to be able to blame politicians for disturbing the markets of the economy with their statist-interventionist policies, which inexorably lead to less wealth for actual individuals, which inexorably leads to less fulfilling or less rich lives; and even to early death for those at the margins who couldn't have afforded trying to get by on anything less.

Think about folks who, because of political meddling into the markets of the economy, who have to go without a nutritious meal, or without a needed prescription, or without air-conditioning, or without a car that could be driven in order to get needed water. The list is endless. When markets tank, people at the margins actually die because of that. This could be thousands and thousands of people. This makes politicians -- at least the statist-interventionist ones -- "murderers", even if they never actually pick up a gun and pull a trigger. They, instead, cause death and destruction with their pen as if it were a sword.

But if my reasoning is correct -- and my reasoning is usually correct -- then doesn't that mean that I would have to praise politicians for getting us into (and keeping us in) "blood-for-oil" wars. Based on a utilitarian morality, it would be proper to sacrifice the lives of a few thousand soldiers in order to get a good deal on oil. Oil is a central part of the markets of the economy and affects everyone alive.

Getting more or cheaper oil would improve the lives of millions, and it would even save the lives of at least tens of thousands of people at the margins.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

Ed

p.s. It is not known for sure if we were ever in a war primarily for the control of oil, but my question assumes that.

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 9/10, 11:09am)

Post 1

Saturday, September 10, 2011 - 10:44am

Ed,

In the first part of your post you ask if the politicians who meddle in the market place aren't responsible for the harm that is done. The answer is yes. Every intervention of the type you spoke of necessarily violates the rights of some individuals. Then there are ripple effects that harm others. Under objective law the person initiating an action is responsible for all harm - like running into the back of someones car, and that car hits another car, which hits a telephone pole, which falls into a house. That first driver will carry the weight of all the damage. If we suddenly became a culture that understood Capitalism, Barney Frank and Obama and many others would be wise to find places to hide.

The second half of your post seems to be off track. First, as you pointed out, we don't go to war for oil and that could only be answered as a hypothetical and that doesn't make sense. But, even if we do this as a hypothetical the actions of individuals is still judged on the same standards. Why would you want to pick up the utilitarian morality? It doesn't justify the war because it is not a rational moral standard. Same would be true if someone tries to apply it to the first half of the post.

Post 2

Saturday, September 10, 2011 - 11:21am

Steve,

Why would you want to pick up the utilitarian morality? It doesn't justify the war because it is not a rational moral standard. Same would be true if someone tries to apply it to the first half of the post.

Great point. That must be where I was stuck. I was evaluating the morality of economic statist-intervention based on the consequences only (i.e., based on strict utilitarianism), rather than based on the principle of individual rights. In doing so, I had locked myself into evaluating the second part of the question by the very same means -- which explains why I was stuck in a conundrum.

Thanks, Steve.

we don't go to war for oil

It would certainly be a good thing if we never did this, but from a purely epistemological standpoint, it's difficult to prove -- one way or the other. I wonder what type and level of evidence would qualify either way on this matter (i.e., what evidence would prove that we do?; what evidence would prove that we don't?).

Ed

Post 3

Saturday, September 10, 2011 - 11:25am

There is no question that the federal government's wealth redistribution has resulted in a massive loss of productive peoples' lives, both potential and extant. Never the less...

I think leeching is a naturally occurring process. Particularly when the hosts are very productive, wasteful, do not defend themselves, and allow the leeches to flourish and multiply. I blame the producers for not defending the products of their labor, for failing to make force initiators net lose.

Politicians are really big leeches. But I wouldn't blame them. Freedom not fought for is lost. And I mean fought with retaliatory force. Voting is freedom masturbation.

Post 4

Saturday, September 10, 2011 - 12:12pm

Dean,

If voting is just a from of masturbation, as you say in your post, and if the producers are responsible for defending themselves, then you are advocating force - not just as morally acceptable to defend oneself, which I agree with, but as being in ones self-interest in all instances. That is not so. If it was, you would be saying that you are wrong if you didn't use a gun to prevent the government from taking any of your money in taxes (maybe beyond a minimal amount for proper governmental functions). So, unless you are posting from a prison somewhere, I assume you haven't taken that path.

A person might have a moral right to shoot a government agent that, say, attempts to take his house using eminent domain, but reasoned self-interest should be telling him that it will make his life worse not better. You don't stop the Juggernaut by throwing yourself in front of it.

I agree with Rand. The place where you draw the line, the line that separates when you use the vote from when you withdraw and/or take up arms, is when freedom of speech, press and assembly are lost and/or election fraud becomes the deciding factor in voting outcomes. That is when it is no longer possible to use peaceful means and the existing system to effect the needed change. Reason dictates that you use the mechanism of advocacy, organizing, and voting while it can effect change.

And I think there is a problem when you blame the victims. It totally obscures the fact that the politicians initiated the force via the laws passed. It doesn't mean that there aren't other forms of blame associated with the process (business should be much more active in defending their rights and Capitalism, voters should be stronger in getting rid of bad politicians, the media that sides with liberal government, the academics that support systems that violate rights, etc.), but the primary moral judgment has to fall those responsible for initiation of violence.

Post 5

Saturday, September 10, 2011 - 12:39pm

"That is when it is no longer possible to use peaceful means and the existing system to effect the needed change."

Three rabbits vote whether they should be eaten with four foxes. The foxes allow them to say whatever they want. No voter fraud. The vice of pacifism.

Immediate force retaliation is not always a virtue, for example if the attempted force retaliation is expected to be futile. But say if force retaliation is effective, and if say you are not just living for yourself but for your friends/family, your personal sacrifice in order to bring a force initiator to justice may be worthwhile. Force retaliation can be performed anonymously.

Who is a greater hero? Ragnar Danneskj�ld or John Galt? The Punisher or Batman?

Atlas Shrugged is one of the best selling books. Voted 2nd most influential book. It is too early to say, but so far, I'd say that Galt has failed in real life. Where is Ragnar?

Post 6

Saturday, September 10, 2011 - 6:12pm