On the Subject of Something

The following is a response I had to a reader concerning how to solve the water managment issue and shortages around the world. They are provisionary thoughts on one way I think the problem can be solved. Here is the article which the comment is a part of: Article

MuskegonCritic,

I am glad you don't have power (I assume you do not). It is that kind of irrational thought process that destroys humanity. What if I offered to pay you $30 a gallon for the water from your lake? I am sure you would reconsider and at the same time the high price I am willing to pay will cause me to use that water as effectively as I can. Should you notice the water in your lake is depleting to fast, start charging $50 per gallon or $60. I will cut back on my water consumption and use that water I now buy for you even more effectively, since I am conserving and using less yet want to try and attain the same effect as when water was $30 per gallon. The problem is, the delivery of water is not like oil or natural gas or electricity.

People tend to claim that it is a 'fundamental right' to have access to water. By what faulty misconception of what rights are does this come about. You have one fundamental right, the right to your own life. This right does not put positive obligations on others (as the 'right' to water does), it merely means others can not (or should not) kill you or take your liberty and property (the methods by which you sustain your own life) from you by force.

Take the disasters that result when people confuse rights with non-rights, such as a house. The government subsidies the housing industry and props up faulty or bad loans and causes the boom and bust and illusionary perception that the housing problem has been solved. Only, as is illustrated by the housing bust now, this is truly an illusion built on quicksand, there is not foundation by which the 'prosperity' is built on.

Forward to the current water problem. There is not real 'price' on water per say because it is a 'fundamental right'. Of course, if something has no proper 'price' then that resource will be overused and misused until it is no longer available. For example, look at the rain forest in Brazil. The property rights in that region are not properly defined and the cost for buying and razing the forest is not properly priced. So what happens? The forest is misused, overused and is depleting rapidly. Look at the forest in the United States. The property rights are clearly defined and the cost is such that they are conserved, both because the price involved and because people who own property with forest on them see that the property retains more value if the trees remain or if the forest is used properly and replanted as well.

As Okkervil said, emotions have no place in this debate because they only cloud out rational thinking. People do not realize that once they shed this notion that water is a 'fundamental right' that it will actually be better for society, more people will have access to water and that water will be used more efficiently because there will be a price for that water. Like most things, if a group of people can not afford the price, there are many others who have the desire and are willing to pay (volunteer, charities, other private, voluntary actions) in order to see their fellow humans alleviated from suffering, without resorting to force, aka government.

It will be interesting to see who wins this debate, I will guess that the liberal (socialist bent, not classical liberty bent) view point will prevail due to the miseducation of the majority of people by government schools and economic illiteracy. But I hold out hope that even a minor step in the direction of defined property rights will yield enough benefits that people shed their preconceptions and realize things work better when you are not riding on an imaginary white horse which can somehow defy economic realities. Thank you.

---

MuskegonCritic,

So people who do not live near oil should not be able to buy it from those who do? How about coal, aluminum, copper, gold, silver, corn, rice, or all the other natural resources which are scattered about the earth. Just as I would not sell some items in my possession, no matter the price, so to the market gives you the ability not to sell your water.

You confuse the 'fundamental right' to water with water defined in property right terms, e.g. like coal, gold, diamonds, etc. Water as a 'fundamental right' means that everyone has a right to access to water, it is the same as saying people have a 'right' to food, in other words someone else has to supply it to you since it is a 'fundamental right'. Water defined as a property right merely allows for the allocation and selling of water on the market place, it would not mean someone has to supply that water, only that they can if they choose to deal with you. For example, suppose I had a house with a pool, the water in that pool would be mine in that I own it and its consumption. But, if I wanted to, I could sell that water to someone else who believes they can put it to better use. That does not mean that person has a 'fundamental right' to my water, only that they have the right to bargain with me it is sale.

The one problem with this method of doing business is the issue of who gains first 'rights' to water? This is where I am afraid people such as yourself (and those around the Great Lakes, please do not cite the propagandist, misleading rhetoric of Congressional representatives who try to whip up anger in people such as you in order to divert you away from tackling the issue) will be so inclined to believe that people will 'steal' all your water when in fact this method would lead to its conservation without having to resort to force, or government intervention. Also, should the demand be great enough for Great Lake water, an entrepreneur could devise a method of bringing fresh water from other regions (say from lakes in Canada, from rivers or underground water) and pumping it into the Great Lakes. If he could pump water into the lakes at the same rate he takes it out while costing him less to pump in then it does to pump out and sell, a profit opportunity is created and the potential for a solution to the problem appears.

I recognize that the use of water like property seems like a radical idea, but until it is treated like other natural resources it will continue to be misused. Oil has been misused because it has been subsidized and played with for so long that it is no longer a true market scenario, but that is an issue for another day.

One last note, how can people cry out that water is a 'fundamental right' yet claim they have the authority and power to prevent people access to a body of water without any clear definition of whether water is property or not?

---

MuskegonCritic,

Did you even read my post? I would appreciate it if you did.

I said: "That does not mean that person has a 'fundamental right' to my water, only that they have the right to bargain with me it is sale."

You said: "The people who do not live near oil should be prepared to not have oil, if nobody wants to sell it. People should not be FORCED into selling something they don't want to sell. That's tantamount to theft."

You are the one advocating forcibly preventing others from selling water from the Great Lakes, which by the arbitrary means you consider yours and those who support you automatically illustrate (by some logical flaw) that the majority of the people in your region actually want to prevent selling of water from the Water Basin, even though a Congressional act is far from a sign of approval by the majority of people. Even so, as Okkervil said, just because you have the majority, does not mean you are right or that your plans will work out logically.

Also, Arizona is not taking your water, most of the water they get, especially Tucson, is from their own underground water or water taken from the Colorado River. It would be to expensive to transport the amount of water needed from the Great Lakes to Arizona when they can get it locally through a variety of sources or buy it from surrounding states.

Third, if it was not for tariffs, they, heavy manufacturers, would not be near the Great Lakes, but more near the port cities, as it now becoming evident and old industry jobs drain from that region, but I do not care to start these useless regional wars, as they are arbitrary boundaries created by the state.

Where do you think you would get your oil to run your factories from if not for the people in the deserts of Nigeria or Saudi Arabia? Or the oil in Arctic regions? How about your copper from the mines of Arizona? Or the gold to run your electronic devices and other things? I could list many other commodities that you rely on that come from these Desert regions or regions with little access to fresh water. Do you know why people started moving there, because people in regions next to water did not have the request resources while those in regions without water did. It was a mutually beneficial trade of resources, but people forget why others move to the regions they do.

You militant stance on the issue is one problem with America today, you have let the statist doctrine so win you over that any attempt at solving the problem through voluntary action you resist and declare 'capitalistic' as if somehow the system (however hobbled the free market is in modern times) that brought you the wealth and freedom you have today is responsible for the evils that the state creates.

---

MuskegonCritic,

Please do not construe this conversation to make it look like I am the one advocating forcing people to or not to buy something, when you are the one advocating government restriction of trade between two parties.

You said: "Democracies force people NOT to sell things all the time"

The problem with Democracy is that A, B, and C can vote to restrict (force) D and E from trading with each other, even if D and E do not trade with A, B, or C. Democracy is mob rule, by which people find a big enough group of people sharing their sentiments, then take a vote to force others to come in line with those sentiments, e.g. banning the sale of certain drugs even for medical use even if they have been proven not to be harmful if taken properly. Just because it is illegal does not mean that is it bad, it just means you got a bigger mob to outlaw me and others from doing things you do not consider 'proper'. Do you think banning something will somehow make it go away? On the contrary, it just forces the price upward and makes that particular product a more lucrative business to enter into, and has been seen causes criminal elements to enter were they would not have otherwise.

You said: "It sounds like your beef is with the concept of contraban items. That, of course, is a different conversation."

My issue is not contraband items, do not misconstrue my words when I did not mention a single contraband in any of my post. My issue is a group of people, who may or may not be a majority, banning others from selling items to each other even if it causes no harm to those group of people. You, your representative and those who are in your camp think that your proximity to the Great Lakes automatically makes the use or non-use of them strictly your affair, whether or not others in the region want to sell some of the water.

You said previously:
"Look. You live in Nevada? New Mexico? Arizona? Guess what? You SETTLED IN A DESERT! IN A DESERT!!! The THING about a desert is, there's NO WATER THERE. And as those regions' populations explode, they're eying up our Lake for water. Suddenly their environmental engineers had a stark realization that there's not enough water IN THE DESERT to sustain a huge city."

Then said: "Arizona has been FANTASTIC with water conservation."

You realize that there is enough water in many desert states to maintain a population of a huge city, if only it is priced and used wisely, even though before you stated otherwise. You fearmongered before, erected a straw man argument even when the fact do not support you, and seemed you hoped not to be found out. I will not discuss this part further - fearmongering, militant stances, non-negotiable issues and other tactics are loved by the statist.

You said: "This is really simple. We're not selling the water."

More specifically, you and your constituents are not selling water so you want to force others in your region from doing so because you believe you know what is best for them. Why not allocate certian percentage of the river to each citizen, then they can sell their alloted gallons or not sell them. By that method we will truly know whether your claims are valid or not and whether you and your constituents should be able to ban the sale of Great Lake water.

You said: "P.S. Arizona can keep its copper. We gots plenty in the UP. But I would like some of that delicious creosote tea. Mmm...but you don't HAVE to sell it to me."

Right, Arizona does not, but that does not mean Arizonans should be able to ban the selling of the tea between a citizen of Arizona and a citizen of the Great Lake region. On the other hand you are saying that those in the Great Lake region should not even be able to sell their commodity (water in this case) to those in other regions, in other words forcing others to not even have the option to sell.

Have you ever considered what would have happened to other commodities and their conservation and use if property rights surrounding them had not been made and properly defined? Oil would have been extracted and exploited more quickly, the forest of the United States would have been deforested and various other resources would have been depleted more quickly, as often happens with mispriced commodities.

---

MuskegonCritic,

I am sorry, but I will point out some factual errors you made, while also giving my thoughts on how to solve the issue.

You said: "You could put Scotland AND Arizona INSIDE the great lakes and still have room to swim around."

The Great Lakes cover about 94,250 square miles while Arizona alone is 113,634.57 sq mi. Your statement is incorrect. (Sources: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/factsheet.html and http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04000.html)

You said: "The thing is...people who don't live near the Great Lakes, don't know anything about them, they don't know the size of them, they don't know they're used for shipping, they don't know there's commercial fishing, and they don't know how threatened they are."

I know full well the problem facing the Great Lakes. At the same time there is a dire problem facing the use of the Colorado River by California, Nevada and Arizona. You do not have to live near a geographic region to know its problems - you can visit there, have friends or family there, read about it and learn about the problems. Most people know about the shipping in Great Lakes and the fishing that is done there. Many also know about the problems facing many lakes, in that they are not being used properly and are losing water.

You said: "Once it's out of the water basin it's gone forever, and the water levels are PERMANENTLY lower."

Water levels are not permanently lowered because various natural and human factors keep water running into the lakes. Example, the Long Lac and Ogoki diversions bring water into Lake Superior from sources that once flowed into James Bay. They were constructed for hydropower generation and logging. For one article on this look at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/WATER/en/nature/lakes/e_levels.htm

Notice how when property and business is at stake people find ways to save natural resources they otherwise would not? People will do amazing things to secure their natural resources in a non-militant way, using capital investments and other methods to ensure that their renewable natural resources stays that way.

I stated: "Why not allocate certian percentage of the river to each citizen, then they can sell their alloted gallons or not sell them. By that method we will truly know whether your claims are valid or not and whether you and your constituents should be able to ban the sale of Great Lake water."

Using this method, it would be in the interest of all in the region to keep the water from flowing out to rapidly, whether that be into the ocean or by selling it to others outside the region. It would also be in the interest of those in the region to build structures to replace lost water, since the less water in the lakes, the less water each person has for their own use.

Lastly, I would like to leave you with a quote. You seem to think that all the Southwest states think about is taking Great Lake water. Well, consider this:
"In 20 years of discussing and debating water issues at a national level, I've never once heard a utilities director in the South or West say one word about tapping Lake Erie for water," said Ciaccia, now head of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. "Those cities are more interested in water reclamation, re-use or even desalination than in coming to get our water."

---

MuskegonCritic,

Are you even going to address my points and your factual errors?

You said: "Kostov seems to be coming back and back and back to the point that people shouldn't be restricted from selling something. For example, I should be able to dig out chunks of asphalt from the Interstate or pull down powerlines and sell the copper or asphalt to China, or hunt elephant seals and sell the meat to Korea."

Are you kidding me? Why do you keep misconstruing my words? Of course you can not sell something you do not own. I am only advocating that people be able to sell the water (or items) they own. That should be clear from my advocacy of a free market.

I recognize the issues and problems facing the Great Lakes. The problem is you have not even cited a single source where you are getting your 'facts' (as some of them have been inaccurate and wrong) from, which is of concern to me.

You said: "They just HOLD water. When you remove water from the water tables, it's gone forever."

Water will not drain out of the Great Lakes permanently, as I stated and cited in my previous post (source of on article from previous post: http://www.ec.gc.ca/WATER/en/nature/lakes/e_levels.htm).

Did you not read my previous post? I pointed out that many of the states you have criticized for wanting to take your water have not interest in it and instead want to focus on water conversation, reclamation and other forms or reuse. With regards to long-distance water transport: "But as for long-distance water diversions: "It's not technically impossible, but it's also not economically feasible," Ciaccia said."

You said: "Mr. Kostov is making arguments against contraban"

I make arguments against others banning people they do not know and should not be interfering from dealing with themselves on property they own. You have created this contraband issue as an attempt to attack my character and make it look like I am advocating harming others and committing illegal activities that are meant to harm others.

You said: "You're well stocked with red herring, my good man."

Please address when and by what statements I have used red herring. I have not claimed you are using red herring arguments yet you attack me for doing so without pointing out which arguments I make are red herring diversions. My last post pointed out factual errors you made in your previous arguments, which I would hardly consider red herring since incorrect facts cause harm to a debate.

You said: "Mr. Kostov seems to be making larger grievances with Democracy. And to that...I don't care what his problem with Democracy is. That's another discussion."

I do make some grievances with Democracy when it violates people's right to their life. The issue at hand is not my grievances against Democracy, but how the people in the Great Lake region propose to ban others from doing something just because they are in the 'majority' (I am not sure whether you are or not).

You said: "Kostov is irritated by the old adage "posession is 9/10 of the law""

Should I even continue dissecting your post in which you attack my character at every chance?

You said: "Yes. Our proximity means the water loss affects us more. SO we should get more say."

How about the others in the region who want to sell some of the water, do they not also have a say?

dyslexistentialism,

You said: "people want to continue to INSULT"

Read my post, I call his stance militant, which it is since he seems to be willing to fight over the issue and is repeating the same fact over and over. It is not name calling, it would be akin to him calling me a free market man. I do not call him or regard him as an idiot, that is not how I debate since it is akin to pulling the Nazi card, it ends all debate and makes it worthless.

Robert J. Eletto,

You said: "Does anyone else think it's irresponsible to slowly etch away public control of water?"

Who is the public? If everyone owns the resource then who should control its use and allocation? I do not think it is irresponsible to etch away public control as long as it is done in a clearly defined manner, such as who gets what parts of the public property, how the sale of the public property will be organized, and various other aspects. There are many cases in which things in private control actually conserve resources better, since it is in the interest of the person owning the property to retain its value or increase its value.

---

The debate seems to have veered off from the original course of whether making water private would solve many of the problems associated with it today. From my post I have proposed methods of doing so that would benefit those in regions with little water or even regions with plenty of water. Many seem to be stuck in the mindset that water is 'public', without considering whether making water private would better help its allocation (as it does with oil, consumer products and other things) and use.

---

MuskegonCritic,

You said: "Not selling the water. I get it. You think that's a bad idea. Noted."

You continue to not even read my post and understand what I am saying. I do not say you have to sell your water, only that the neighbor next to you should have the opportunity to sell his water if he wants to. Do you have the right to prevent your neighbors from selling what is there's? If no one in the Great Lake region wants to sell water, then I have no issue with that, as long as it is their water property and they are not preventing others in the region from selling their water.

I will end my discussion with you, as you have promptly ignored the various sources I have pointed out that contradict your claims and have not responded to any of my assertions, going so far as to call everything I have done, ""You're well stocked with red herring, my good man." If you believe the sources I cited and the logic I use to propose a system by which water will be used more wisely and properly since it will have a price on it is red herring, then I do not know what this whole debate was about. I believe it was about solutions to the growing water shortage issue. Thank you for taking the time to (I am beginning to doubt) read my posts. I will move onto other people in this comment section who will actually read what I have to say and respond to it.

As a last note, maybe this article will help you understand some ideas on how to converse natural resources: http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/publications/tech_briefs/7forestservices.pdf

Yankee Kid,

I have some questions about your plan, where will the money come from and is the technology available to make the claims you made possible?

Would it not be likely that in creating a international body, politics will eventually come into play and people will fight over where the projects should start, who should get the first allocation of money, and other such issues?

It seems to me that had people placed a proper price on water, many of these issues would not be occurring now. Cotton is grown in Arizona when it could more effectively be grown elsewhere and use less water. Other various uses, such as people in the desert and other regions having large lawns to water, have not been exposed to the true cost of the water they are spending, so it is wasted. Take a automobile shop I was driving by recently. They had a fountain shooting out water around some of their cars, an unnecessary waste of water that would not occur had the water been price properly. I could go on, but I have already made several post dealing with the matter, it can be seen where I am going with this.

The following is an ongoing debate between two members of Amazon.com (Bezukhov is me) over the book Economics in One Lesson, it is interesting and I believe much benefit can be derived from reading it. Tell me what you think of the discussion, what they are missing and what could be improved.
-----------
Bezukhov says:
Funny you cite lower crime rates (a cultural phenomena rather than a government phenomena in most cases); education (which has much to do with how much government controls education, which the United States is a leader in, as the government has a near monopoly there, while many western European countries have voucher programs, a capitalistic, market based approach leading to better education due to competition, etc); and health care (which is only better if you have not been to the United States and experienced health care that is responsive to you, treats you as the number one customer rather than another statistic that must be dealt with and satisfied (by some 'caring' and 'responsible' politician or bureaucrat), the market approach, though hobbled by endless regulations, still succeeds in this case).

Better TV programs is debatable, that is purely based on what you consider 'good' television, not objective like who is getting a surgery faster, with less risk and at a lower cost. Plus, in most of the western European countries, the government has minimal, if no, involvement in the development of television programs.

Explain to me why you feel that regulation (coercion) is the answer to problems rather than allowing people to come to voluntary agreements on a deal? If I do not feel that a producer is giving me enough information about their product, I won't buy from them or will negotiate with them until they concede more information. I need no government to force that, and other, producers to provide me information that I am not entitled to.

But I will stop before I get side-tracked. The free market works, only the world has rarely had true free markets, even in the United States.

p.s. could you give examples as to why this book deserves a 1-star rating, political views aside can you rate the book based on how informative it is.
-----
C. M. Struik says:
OK, it's a political review. I can't see how this can be avoided when the book itself is so blatantly political. I agree that the market economy works; it's very efficient at producing more unnecessary goods for people who already have everything, and at unbalancing society in general as it takes account only of what people will buy. It also succeeds at reducing the salaries of government workers and thereby causing a decline in public services and promoting corruption. I'm not pleading for socialism, but I get worked up when serious economists like Keynes etc. are made fun of.
-----
Bezukhov says:
Do you realize that the market economy is only an extension of allowing people the freedom to go about their lives without the fear of some other person or government entity using force to make them do something they do not want to do. Public service is alive and well, the government is not needed to promote such actions. Charities are alive and well, children's clinics, such as St. Andrew's Church in Nogales, are operating, where professional doctors volunteer their time to help those in need.

Have you researched the fact that in Soviet Russia, the farmers who were allowed the freedom to grow their own crops and reap the rewards of their hard work, produced 25% of the country's crop output on only 3% of its land.

Keynes was only a serious economist if you consider economic theories that are based on coercion, massive debt build up and the idea that the only method of people making income and producing growth is through consumption.
Read this article for some reasons why Keynes and his theories have caused nothing but trouble: http://mises.org/story/2950

Realize that much of what the government does right now, from education to social welfare, was done through private action through much of the 19th century before the rise of the welfare state during the 20th century. Government rarely creates wealth, more over its chief method of making money is by legally stealing, plainly theft, of its subjects property.

I will leave you with two quotes, both counters to your arguments.
"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."
"A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it [...] gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want."
-----
C. M. Struik says:
Belief in freedom is a faith, which you're welcome to, but I can't see how you can manage to overlook the downsides of untrammeld capitalism and individualism. (Enron comes to mind?)
I already said I'm not a socialist or communist, but my belief is that people should take government seriously so that their money is spent wisely. The freedoms that America is so proud of were brought about by wise government, and I can't understand why so few Americans are interested in politics, an interest which might bring about some improvement.
I guess you are aware of the percentage of underfed children in the richest country in the world?
-----
Bezukhov says:
You bring up one downside to 'untrammeld' corporatism (not capitalism) and greed (not individualism).

To make a side note, individualism does not mean greed, egotism and selfishness, it means the recognition of the individual's views and tastes as supreme in his own sphere, however narrowly that may be circumscribed, and the belief that it is desirable that men should develop their own individual gifts and bents. From this an individualist can be a charity donator, a non-for-profit operator and many other things that are no for profit or greed.

The freedoms that America enjoys are brought about by wise government, capitalism (or more accurately the free market), need a wise - and limited - government to operate smoothly. But a wise government does not mean an interventionist, welfare state type government. It means a government that creates rules for the game and officiate those rules (referee) them impartially. In soccer the referee can not change the rules on a dime without notifying players in advance (even then under most games he can not once the game has begun), neither can he interfere in the game, try to make the players 'better', he merely makes sure the players follow the predetermined rules. This is the same purpose of a wise government.

Your 'wise' government seems to be one that decides what is best for others, a collectivist focused government rather than an individualist (which is no synonymous with selfishness and greed) focused government. Hayek in 'The Road to Serfdom' already broke down in great detail and highlighted the failures of collectivist thought and governance, so I won't repeat it here.

The number of underfed children is not a fault of capitalism but a fault of government subsidies and control of the agriculture business. There are times when tons of wheat are sitting in storage containers because the structure of the government rules surrounding the sale and trade of produce makes it more profitable for the farmer to hold onto the produce than sell it, hardly a feature that would occur under an unfettered free market. Government interference into industries brings misallocation, witness the disaster of the government trying to allocate gasoline during the 1970s. It causes people to have nothing rather than have something at a price. Lastly, why do people who attack capitalism always bring up some 'oh but the children' argument? Here is a nice article to think about: http://mises.org/story/2967.

I will give you a list of the upsides to unhindered capitalism and individualism. James J Hill (built a rail road faster, more efficient and better than government run and subsidized ones); Bill Gates (took the money he earned by voluntarily trading with others to help those in need, witness the Gates Millennium Scholarship and so much more); automakers (the competition for customers and the warranties that would make it costly to have a defective car ensured cheaper and more reliable cars for the average person); software programmers (they make leaps and strides each month improving the usability of software and allowing people to get things done faster, better or easier than before); Eli Whitney (the invention of the cotton gin to improve the removal of seeds, helping make cotton cheaper); and the list could go on and on.

And lastly, the Enron problem was not a fault of the market, but one of violating the rules of the market. There will always be those who try to defraud others. That is why we need laws against theft and fraud. The Enron debacle is the fault of government for not having a clear Law of the Market so that the auditing conflicts would have been illegal unless the company charter had stated that it would engage in such practices, which would have warned everybody.

Once again, government, not the market, failed.
-----
C. M. Struik says:
I seem to read the wrong books. In "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" one finds corporate practices that are less uplifting than the ones you mention. As Enron was only one example of violation. Not everybody is enthousiastic about Bill Gates' business practises either.
Our basic disagreement seems to be faith in human beings with lots of freedom. I think they need more checks and balances than you do, and that as a result we should care about how we are governed, so that the kind of mistakes you mention are avoided.
With regard to your football metaphor; the government should be a coach: love and support all his players, but some have to be on the bench at times. He should also have an eye for the weaker players and find decent alternatives for them.

So far in Hazlitt's book I have found no objections to large sums being allocated to war by the government, where not only the precious tax-payers dollar is used for actions that violate international agreements, but also human lives are sacrificed. It seems to be of no consequence that large companies benefit from war through the taxpayer's dollar. It's only an example to illustrate how important government is and that not all forms of production are necessarily beneficial, no matter how efficient they are.
-----
Bezukhov says:
It seems that you do not want to address the points I brought up directly, but you seem to desire to restrict the actions of rational people like me because you feel you know better than us how we should live our lives. People who support regulations are people who think they know how to run others lives better than they themselves do. Also, many of the 'mistakes' you and I cite would happen regardless of whether there are 'check and balances' in place, humans will always make errors of judgment. Under a free market (with a clear Rule of Law) those people would be punished financially and reputationally. Under a semi-free market with a labyrinth of rules and regulations, the type of actions you cite happen more often, because those violating the rules are able to confuse and mislead the regulators who have to watch over a complex and contradictory set of rules that at times defy logic.

The Government should not be a coach, because the coach is biased toward his team and certain players, and does not officiate the game. The coach interprets no rules by which the different players shall follow. The referee on the other hand, is impartial, helps out the players who gets knocked down (allows for assistance by others) and does not limit which players are allowed on the field of play, as long as they are registered (aka citizens) and haven't abused the rules of the game in any way (aka no red cards, etc).

Companies that benefit from war are a direct result of people wanting to expand government, if the government was small and limited, it would not have the ability to wage offensive wars and thereby permit an industry that piggybacks on wars and other conflicts. Also, the military industrial complex is not efficient, it just has large government contracts to keep it continuously humming along.

Read 'The Road to Serfdom' and see whether your support for a more socialistic government (to even a minor degree beyond protecting the very small percentage of people who actually need assistance) almost always leads to problems down the road.
-----
Ian says:
"OK, it's a political review. I can't see how this can be avoided when the book itself is so blatantly political."
How is it political? It's straight, basic economics. It's only political if one reads with one's politics. In that light, any book can be political.

"<The market economy> also succeeds at reducing the salaries of government workers and thereby causing a decline in public services and promoting corruption."
Not necessarily true on any count. A healthy market economy can fund a robust government (unfortunately). Public services can be provided by private enterprise, and in a way obedient to actual market demands and needs. Nor is there an inverse relationship between government funding and corruption. Unaccountability is a prime reason for corruption, and that is found in any government.

There is an alternative: an honest, cost-benefit analysis of how much government is actually needed, as opposed to a pure benefit analysis, a ubiquitous fallacy of pro-government thinking that is a major theme of Hazlitt's book.
-----
Ian says:
"Our basic disagreement seems to be faith in human beings with lots of freedom. I think they need more checks and balances than you do, and that as a result we should care about how we are governed, so that the kind of mistakes you mention are avoided."

What checks man best is his fellow man. The American founders identified proper government as that which checks the passions of man: his aggressive, bullying instincts. It does this through law and force. But it is not proper government to check man's lawful interests. They identified "the pursuit of happiness" as an inalienable right because government ends freedom when it begins to decide what's best to make a man whole and happy.

Let culture, which has the force of persuasion, deal as best it can with the man with an unsavory idea of happiness. But let goverment, which has the force of arms, deal with him, and we give government permission to becomes man's providence. What then?
-----
C. M. Struik says:
I'm afraid there is no end to this discussion. I feel the pursuit of happiness has led to more greed and selfishness, a decline in respect for culture and learning. More children grow too fat (if they're not underfed) than are challenged by education. They follow shallow dreams fed to them by advertising, Hollywood movies, in short everything producers can throw at them to tempt them to find temporary, but unhealthy bliss. I am not telling you or them how to lead your lives, but I do wish there was an alternative to a system that can only survive on more consumption. In this system people are seduced to make unhealthy choices, that affect themselves and untimately the planet.
The reason I call the book political is that it's basic choice is to produce more and more efficiently, and though the book says time and time again that it looks beyond immediate results it doesn't take into account the consequences. If you've seen Chaplin's modern times, you must have realised that many jobs will becomes pointless and repetitive. If you have read any literature, starting with eg The Great Gatsby, you can't have missed the point that individual lives are nothing but show. Keep up with and impress the Joneses.
Maybe the book isn't bad economics, it's blind to the consequences of capitalist production.
-----
Bezukhov says:
You seem to miss the whole point of my posts. You have a stereotyped view of today's children, fed probably by the same media that you criticize for cheapening their lives and dreams. You should give children more credit than that, I know several children naught yet out of elementary school who are dreaming of how hard they need to work to attend MIT, Harvard or another top school and help make the world better, yet they are awash as any in the media blitz of our times.

I am not advocating a production of just the best goods at the best price, but the freedom for people to engage in whatever voluntary actions they please, as long as they do not infringe upon others ability to do the same. You believe that freedom leads to just more consumption, unhealthy choices, a decline in the respect for culture and learning and lives that are pointless and repetitive. The Great Gatsby, while a great book, was a period piece and an individuals story. It illustrates the pointless pursuit of a substanceless dream, that once attain, leaves the person empty. That was Gatsby. Other characters are flawed because they are trying to revisit the highs of their youth (Tom, trying to find the high of his footballing days) but are never able to attain them. The book is about flawed characters, and the flaws of the rich at the time, not necessarily an assault of modern times or modern humans.

On the other hand, a lack of freedom illustrates a declining respect for culture (look at the Nazi book burning, the Soviet destruction of other cultures monuments, other regimes who want to tell people what 'proper' culture is, etc.) while freedom breeds a respect for other people and their cultures (witness the diversity of cultures in just one city in America, such as New York, and that view will change, unless you find other people's cultures 'cheap' and superficial). What makes you think that forcing children to have 'substantive' dreams will actually make them want to pursue those dreams, and who is to decide what a 'shallow' dream is? A lack of freedom or private property breeds a lack of respect for the land, look at private land compared to public land, people like to conserve their property, make it look the best it can, as that is what gives it the most value, not barren, destructive land. Plus, socialism gives no incentive for people to save and conserve, while capitalism gives incentive to produce something with the least cost (ie resources) in order to make a larger profit.

Furthermore, are you implying that we should design jobs that are not pointless and repetitive, that is just the nature of many occupations. You may find it hard to believe, but some people like that, they do not have to think, get paid then can entertain themselves elsewhere. You seems to associate freedom with capitalism, even though capitalism is only one part of a free society. Freedom includes the ability to form charities, volunteer organizations, associations, clubs, etc. This is what leads to a more wholesome community, not people controlling and telling people that they are living 'shallow' lives.

Lastly, greed and selfishness are the only human qualities that are universal, animals (which we are) are inherently greedy (how else would they survive if they did not want resources for themselves) and selfish (they want the best for them, their family and species). Why not create a system that harnesses these qualities for good, ie the free market, and tames them rather than a system that attempts to deny they exist, ie collectivist doctrines, and gives them more power to harm others.

Go to an elementary school and talk to some children, it might change your mind on the state of freedom, what those children dream of becoming and the future of the planet, people are selfish and greedy, but are not love and compassion made up of both?
-----
C. M. Struik says:
I'm really glad you're taking so much time to educate me. I can assure you I do read your posts carefully, and the reasoning is not without its merit, I just don´t share your optimism. If human beings are still largely controlled by their ids I see no reason to trust most of them with unlimited freedoms, not do I see the system harnessing the id for good.
And as for missing the point, I have more than once written I´m neither a socialist nor a communist, and I resent being grouped with Nazi´s or Soviets. As for contact with kids, I´m afraid I am in daily contact with adolescents, whose increasing immersion in useless pastimes may one day be replaced by greater things, but whose lack of interest in cultural development is sometimes frightening. Nevertheless I enjoy their passion and optimism.
I´m surprised that you don´t recognise Gatsbies all around you, and I suppose that the gruesome future depicted in Brave New World has no validity for present developments either. I´m sorry to be such a dim and stubborn pupil; it makes further discussion useless. I thank you for your time.
-----
B Bezukhov says:
I am sorry if I sounded a bit harsh, I did not mean in any way to group you with the Nazi's or Soviet's (to do so would end discussion and devolve it into name calling). It was a general statement of the progression of lack of freedom, more appropriate example would be the FCC and its fines for things such as nudity and language which are a part of every day life and definitive features of some cultures, yet are subdued by a government body that restricts people's freedom to communicate ideas with one another.

I realized early on that you were not a socialist, communist or any type of collectivist, just a person who believes some more controls are necessary to ensure people do not harm each other. A lot of this comes down to the community ones lives in as well, if you see more of the vices than the virtues of man, it would lead you to want to control him more than a person who saw the reverse.

While I see Gatsbies all around me, I do not take that as a reason to restrict what those people can do, most choose freely to live such a life, some enjoy it while others do not. But it is not up to me to decide whether I think their lives are substantive or whether they should pursue better aims, that is up to them. My only aim in interacting with them would be to cooperate with them for my own, their own or some third party's own benefit. When controls are put in place, it is usually for one person's benefit (maybe their piece of mind, ie gun controls) at the expense of somebody else (ie someone not being able to freely go out and buy a gun, possibly for a collection).

I take the view that if I can talk to one mind and influence it even slightly toward the concept of more freedom for all, then it is worth it, because as they spread their ideas to others, and more people will be influenced than just them directly. Plus, discussions illustrate the weaknesses in my ideas, which I can then start find out ways to fix. Thank you for taking the time to read my posts, it has been most enjoyable.