As with most ideas, I’m uncertain ’bout the intelligence o’ economists—not comfortable with accepting them as intelligence ’cause some rich organizations called “colleges” say they are, but also not comfortable with just writing them off as ditsy.

Whenever I see economists try to defend their profession gainst the mean ol’ critics in mainstream media, my uncertainty is only exacerbated. They usually only make themselves look stupider, which is hard to believe from people who are apparently able to graduate from places like Harvard. My paranoiac side makes me want to believe that perhaps these newspapers intentionally pick strawmen economists to make the whole profession look bad, though I’m not sure why they would. I dunno.

Neither precludes us from pointing & laughing, however.

I. Mankiw Doesn’t Know What the Hell He’s Protesting

In smugly-titled New York Times article, “Know What You’re Protesting,” Harvard economist Greg Mankiw protests gainst Occupy Wall-Street hippies & somehow makes them look like scientists & him look like a postmodernist-sputtering hippie. ’Gain, my paranoiac side makes me think this is an elaborate troll-job on Mankiw & Occupy’s part.

He starts with paragraphs o’ self-fellating/self-pitying backstory wherein he treats a li’l walkout as if ’twere the French Revolution. How did you live through it, Mankiw? I hope your metaphorical tweed suit was not ruffled by such uncouth behavior.

I particularly loved this bit:

I have been told that at least one of the students who walked out sneaked back in later: he wanted to support the protest but didn’t want to miss the lecture [Emphasis mine].

Apparently this Harvard-educated scientist never took a single rhetoric class, since if he did, he’d know that “I have been told” is known as weasel-words & that no true scientist uses them. They provide evidence or shut up.

To be fair, this is a believable story: Mankiw’s amazing lectures are, I’m sure, a life-changing moment that could never be replaced by, say, reading 1 o’ the millions o’ economics textbooks out there. How can anyone learn ’bout the Phillips Curve with mere text when one could hear it through Mankiw’s sexy voice? Everyone knows Mankiw’s lectures are fucking rock concerts. I bet this totally-not-imaginary student made sure to get a front-row seat with a bucket o’ popcorn in-hand.

If anything, we should expect the opposite: lazy students pretending to protest so they can sneak a free hour to smoke pot, get laid, make Super Mario World rom hacks, or whatever you punks do nowadays.

If there is any truth to this claim, the answer obviously is that some student stoned out o’ his mind saw the other students walk out; thought, O, is class over already?; & went out with them, only to learn the truth afterward & sneak back in thinking, O shit. Whoops.

So what is his—Mankiw’s, not the stoner’s—rebuke to these foolish peons? Well, after he digresses into some irrelevant bullshit ’bout the 70s, he makes a strong case for his class:

It includes ideas of many greats in the field, like Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Arthur Pigou, John Maynard Keynes and Milton Friedman.

A whole 1 o’ those lived past the 1950s, too! Clearly Mankiw is on the cutting edge o’ economic science. Those students will surely leave that classroom with impeccable knowledge o’ how to get the most cows from bartering pigs.

Then he parrots some student newspaper’s appeal to “nonpartisanship”—an imaginary concept idiots make up so their ideas don’t have to be held up to any authentic standards, & thus have their idiocy revealed. He, ’course, doesn’t provide evidence for his nonpartisanship—as no centrist ever does, since it’s based on an imaginary scale. As true scientists, we should take his word without skepticism.

He then devolves into cretinous dick-sucking o’ Paul Samuelson & whining ’cause some bearded Marxist whined ’bout him not being a bearded Marxist. I could whine for a whole article ’bout he & Nordhaus’s Economics & how the claim that it’s nonideological is as blatant a lie as saying the sky is green; but for now I’ll simply note that Mankiw himself provides no reason why I should like Samuelson’s work other than that Mankiw calls him “left-o’-center.” I love how people who complain ’bout ideology can use nothing but ideological words to defend their arguments—almost as if they’re completely full o’ shit. The fact that “left-o’-center”¹ doesn’t mean anything concrete doesn’t hinder this Harvard economist 1 bit. What a scientist!

I think this was meant to be his bid to cater to the silly leftists, which isn’t consistent with his claim that he doesn’t serve ideology. But if he knew anything ’bout leftists, he’d know its various clans hate each other, anyway. The “left” includes some o’ the most libertarian & totalitarian ideologies in the world; “left” doesn’t mean shit.

Warning: explicit handjobbing ’head:

I don’t claim to be an economist of Paul Samuelson’s stature. (Probably no one alive can.)

Unfortunately, the vile Marxists have a rebuke: Ha! That doesn’t include Zombie Marx!

Back to serious—O, wait, I’m reading an economist’s op-ed. There’s nothing serious here.

Yet, like most economists, I don’t view the study of economics as laden with ideology.

“In our opinion, we’re not idiots.” Apparently, this “scientist” still hasn’t realized that opinions without evidence or rationale are worthless. People will decide for themselves whether you’re ideological or not—& so far you have proven yourself not so, if only ’cause ideological people require a’least some intellectual content in their loony theories.

Most of us agree with Keynes, who said: “The theory of economics does not furnish a body of settled conclusions immediately applicable to policy. It is a method rather than a doctrine, an apparatus of the mind, a technique for thinking, which helps the possessor to draw correct conclusions.”

Well, that is wise, & not mindless buzzwords strewn together: “Economics doesn’t make conclusions; it just chooses methods o’ thoughts based on the conclusions toward which they inevitably lead. Totally different.”

That is not to say that economists understand everything. The recent financial crisis, economic downturn and meager recovery are vivid reminders that we still have much to learn.

So far you’ve yet to show that economists know anything. Literally, the only evidence you’ve given is points in which economists have failed.

Why do so many articles I argue with end up arguing with themse—Mankiw’s ’nother 1 o’ them! You think I didn’t notice the way you slyly snuck in that reference to Zombie Marx. You’re 1 o’ them, too. They’ve taken over every economic school & pit them gainst each other while they sneakily take over. Damn you crafty Marxists.

Widening economic inequality is a real and troubling phenomenon, albeit one without an obvious explanation or easy solution. A prerequisite for being a good economist is an ample dose of humility.

O, fuck off, David Brooks. Then you must be a shitty 1, considering all o’ the self-fellatio earlier.

I want to note ’gain that Mankiw’s basic conclusion is: “Occupy Wallstreet protesters are dumb ’cause they don’t believe I’m equipped to talk ’bout economics, & I agree with them.” Maybe that’s the humility he’s talking ’bout: the paradox o’ an economist who knows he’s an idiot—& yet ’cause he’s an idiot, his knowledge that he’s an idiot must be wrong. “I think I’m an idiot… they think I’m an idiot… I am an idiot… therefore, they must be idiots, too. QED.”

I want to point out the letter Mankiw made the mistake o’ linking to, as it ’gain demonstrates how much smarter Mankiw’s students were than him. I want to particularly emphasize this paragraph:

A legitimate academic study of economics must include a critical discussion of both the benefits and flaws of different economic simplifying models. As your class does not include primary sources and rarely features articles from academic journals, we have very little access to alternative approaches to economics. There is no justification for presenting Adam Smith’s economic theories as more fundamental or basic than, for example, Keynesian theory [emphasis mine].

“Those ideological leftists! All their hippie slogans o’ ’primary sources’ & ’academic journals’!”

Mankiw should take his own advice to know what he’s protesting; others may do the same & won’t have a high opinion o’ his rebuttal when he doesn’t.

Addendum:

I have later learned that “left-o’-center” Mankiw also wrote a delightful paper titled “A Defense of the One Percent,” which is so full o’ hilarity that I may have to dedicate a separate article to it.

The briefest I could say is that its use o’ references barely rises ’bove infantile book reviews & that its overall scientific value is akin to the kind o’ papers I wrote in my freshman Sociology class. I hope this was just something a drunken Mankiw spewed out in 1 night & not something that reached an actual economics journal. I mean, I know they have the highest o’ standards & all. Not like those silly li’l sociologists!

II. Nonfalsifiability: the Apex o’ Science

Our next example is by Andrew Lilico, with ’nother modestly-titled article in the Telegraph, “Good economists are almost always right about almost everything,” forgetting to add the important adage that a good economist is hard to find—& impossible in this tripe.

Good economists are usually about as right as it’s possible to be. There, I said it.

Whoa, hold on there, George Carlin. I can’t take this edgy stand-up next to my Mutts & Family Circus.

I love how ’gain he qualifies it with “good,” & qualifies it further with “as it’s possible to be,” to maximize meaninglessness. I’d think being usually correct is what would define a “good” economist: the true debate is whether most economists are good.

That shouldn’t be controversial. After all, that’s why economists get paid so much…

Nothing’s mo’ scientific than the “Just-So” fallacy.

& I’m sure quite a few heterodox economics make a lot o’ money, too, so this assumption is not only invalid, it’s conclusion is self-contradictory.

…and why societies managed according to economic principles such as sound money, secure property rights and effective competition are much more prosperous than others.

“These societies that exist in my fantasies.”

Actually, most o’ the most prosperous countries are those vile socialistic Nordic countries & Switzerland, which are well known for lots o’ income redistribution & having some o’ the greatest tolerance for intellectual-property piracy. So “secure property rights” is wrong, & “sound money” & “effective competition” mean nothing mo’ than “good things,” & thus prove nothing. An economist’s job is to determine what money is sound & what competition is effective, not to just say that good things are good.

It’s why so much everyday government policymaking is dominated by economic reasoning, from the price controls imposed upon utilities, such as water and electricity (even called “economic regulation”), to the rules on how economic reasoning has to be used in devising regulation and setting taxes (so-called “impact assessments”).

I’m glad he emphasizes this “reasoning” aspect I’ve never heard ’bout before. I’d usually run my economy like Mario Party: just roll & hope we land on boom! Oops! Landed on a Bowser space! Gliosmar Gutenberg owes $20 trillion in taxes. Better luck next time, Gutenberg.

I love how these economists are so simpleminded & yet so arrogant that they have to make up imaginary opponents to hide the fact that they can’t argue gainst their authentic critics. This is Ayn-Rand level strawmanning: “They can’t be arguing gainst my logic, since it’s so impeccable, so they must just reject reason itself.”

It’s why the tools of economic reasoning, such as game theory, have come to dominate so many other disciplines, from evolutionary biology through moral philosophy to political science and military strategy, most famously including nuclear weapons policy — there is even a branch of physics called “quantum game theory”.

I’ve read quite a few scientists disagree. For instance, I’ve read biologists correcting some economists’ hilarious ignorance o’ biology. Meanwhile, physicists are so opposed to mainstream economics that they made up their own field. Indeed, I’ve noticed a pattern o’ other scientists mocking economists for thinking they’re smarter than they are.

I must confess that this & my broad reading o’ works by famous economists has colored my perception, which is not helped by Mankiw & Lilico. However, I’ll give other economists the benefit o’ the doubt & assume these 2 got in by sucking someone’s dick—forgive me if I doubt carpet-cleaning will get one far in the immensely progressive field o’ economics—or something.

It’s why your television screens are full of economists every day, explaining not just news events, but almost everything, from which football managers are the most skilled to why singer Katherine Jenkins is so successful.

“We may suck @ predicting recessions; but we can predict which team will make the Super Bowl—Go Tunnel Rhinos!”

Some such challenges are easily deflected. Orthodox economics tells us that it is impossible to predict significant financial crises in advance – or else everyone would predict them and trade off that and so they wouldn’t happen. There’s little point in criticising economists for being unable to predict shocks they say are impossible to predict.

“It doesn’t matter if we suck—we’re s’posed to suck. So there!”

Some textbooks will tell you economics is the study of incentives. I unpack that as follows: economics is the discipline that tells you why behaviour makes sense.

“I’ll unpack that by misinterpreting it.” The idea o’ incentives is that you try to influence certain behavior by making that behavior mo’ beneficial; that’s kilometers ’way from manufacturing explanations for why any action is “rational.” I should point out that none o’ these prove that economists are good @ setting incentives (Hint: in a society where bankers are rewarded for fraud by giving them bailouts & stay-@-home spouses are punished for doing society-benefiting work, they aren’t.)

Ironically, “behaviour makes sense” makes no sense. What behavior? Just behavior in general? Is that the bold stand he takes? “I think it’s time we behaved in some fashion, unlike all those inanimate people vegetating round. There, I said it.”

Hey, wait… Is he just regurgitating Mises’s tautological “human action” nonsense? Is Lilico an Austrian economists pretending to be 1 who doesn’t living in a cave? Get out o’ the neoclassicals’ chair, Lilico! We’re s’posed to be having a serious discussion here.

If my left arm goes up, a physicist might tell you about the atoms and molecules and forces that took it there. A biologist might tell you about the electrical impulses in the nerves in my arm and the hormones and energy transport in the blood. A certain sort of old-fashioned psychotherapist might tell you about how raising my left arm resolved the struggle between my super-ego and my ID. But economics is the discipline that seeks to explain why I raised my left arm in terms of why that made sense to me, given my objectives and beliefs.

See, the difference is that the former 2 are actually science, while the latter 2 are just shit people make up in their head that have no way o’ proving or disproving—also known as “pseudoscience.” It’s good to hear that economists presume to read every individual’s mind. No wonder “good” economists are right ’bout everything: they literally have psychic powers.

But rationality is not an assumption of orthodox economic theory in that sense. Instead, it is what is called an “axiom”. No behaviour can prove that people aren’t, in fact, rational, because for an orthodox economist the only kind of explanation of any behaviour that counts as an economic explanation is an explanation that makes sense of that behaviour — that shows why the behaviour is rational.

“So, you see, economics is nonfalsifiable, & thus pseudoscience.”

Economists are apparently like spoiled brats who just make up rules when they start to lose. “Ha! You think you checkmated me, but I’ve decided that that move doesn’t count as an economic explanation ’cause I say so, so you lose.”

Irrationality and other heterodoxy is usually little better than an all-encompassing conspiracy theory, explaining everything and thus nothing — for while many behaviours may not be rational, there is no behaviour that is not irrational.

That’s just the flip-side o’ your argument, & thus yours is just as stupid.

In the 19th century economics faced a mystery. In the Irish potato famine of the 1840s and during the Paris Commune of the 1870s, when the prices of staple food (in the one case potatoes, in the other bread) went up, demand went up also. Pondering this mystery, economists eventually reasoned as follows.

(Slaps forehead.) This makes no sense! Why would people continue to demand food when the price has gone up? You’d think their desire to end deathly agonizing starvation would transfer to cheaper demands—like kitten stuffies—to maximize their utility.

To be fair, he does answer with this very same obvious point. So apparently “good” economists are as smart as some likely-mentally-unstable bum blogging ’bout his favorite Donkey Kong Country levels². So where’s my check then?

So, his idea o’ “good economics” is psychoanalysis—making up any reason one can to ensure any possibility turns out “rational”? Then it’s fitting that he brought up Freudian psychiatry, since his beliefs are just as scientific.

’Course, psychiatry has evolved from Freudianism into something far mo’ scientific. Let’s hope economics does—or has already done—the same by ignoring kooks like this guy.

Suppose instead we had answered: “Obviously, if people were rational, then when prices went up they’d buy less. But they aren’t always rational, as demonstrated by the examples of bread and potatoes.” Then we would have missed the key insight.

We’d be dumbasses. Thankfully, the only heterodox economists who say that exist in Lilico’s fever dreams. I think they’d usually use mo’ potent examples—like pointing to a YouTube video o’ some drunk fuck in a cowboy hat & whip jumping into a bear’s cage so he can try riding it.”

Contrary to most popular commentary, the main financial economics models have worked extremely well during the financial crisis, and remain in place.

“Just look @ the good job we’ve done making up in our head explanations in retrospect for economic phenomena that happened almost 200 years ago. Where would we be without economists?” This is indeed a good sign: we need only wait till round 2190 for economists to finally figure out why this bewildering depression happened.

But even supposing they hadn’t, that wouldn’t have proved we should abandon the attempt to make sense of events; to abandon the attempt to offer an orthodox economics account. For very often it is when we are forced to grapple with a mystery, with behaviour that does not at first seem to make sense, that we produce the greatest insights.

“No matter what, we win. That’s my favorite part: I absolutely hate standards. Then I couldn’t get rich writing mindless tripe like this.”

The insights orthodox economics will eventually produce in reaction to the financial crisis will advance our social and economic life and prosperity even further than economics has done already. For good economists, given time and sound theory, are almost always right about almost everything.

Ha, ha, ha! I can’t fucking believe he repeated my joke as a serious advantage o’ economics.

You know there’s only 1 explanation for this: since, as any “good” economist will note, all actions are rational, this article’s sloppy logic must be rational. There’s a perfect explanation: Lilico’s ’nother Marxist rationally writing nonsense to discredit mainstream economics & push the public into the hands o’ communism.

They’re everywhere now.

Addendum:

For an actually intellectually-valuable critique o’ Lilico’s fine work by an authentic economist, one can read this article by Steve Keen, which claims that Lilico didn’t even interpret what he was defending correctly—which is unsurprising, as a lot o’ what he said didn’t even make sense. I’m glad my original but unstated thesis that these 2 are merely madman who snuck into the realm o’ economics has been confirmed.

Why write an article on a subject you know nothing about?

Why not? It never stopped Mises Daily from writing ’bout economics.

You walked into that 1, guys.

Anyway, some philosopher named Amia Srinivasan @ the New York Times made the mistake o’ taking laissez-faire libertarianism seriously & civilly asked ’bout their many logical inconsistencies as good moderate liberals always do. The Mises Institute Mises Daily, parroted by the Mises Institute, as every narcissistic political group that views themselves as the greatest victims in the world, take this as further evidence o’ the mainstream media’s irrational hatred o’ the 1 true economic system. This time that charge is led by David Gordon in The New York Times Got Libertarianism Wrong Yet Again.

What Srinivasan does is compare 2 laissez-faire libertarians—1 who was so anal that he himself used the term Utopian in his book, showing that even he knew he was full o’ shit—& 1 who tries to temper his crazy religion with some acknowledgement o’ reality. These comparisons are common ’mong good moderate liberals: much as there’s the “civil” or “rational” Republican as opposed to the loud-mouthed louts liberals are used to getting misspelled death threats from, there is the dream o’ the laissez-faire libertarian who doesn’t type his posts from a subterranean cave.

I disagree with her claim that either o’ them might be rational, but that’s not the topic now. What is is Gordon’s illiteracy:

It isn’t just that he finds it “difficult to say” that you deserve what you get in the market. He doesn’t say it at all. […] In his account, you get what you are entitled to, a very different matter.

Thesaurus.com & Oxford disagree:

Gordon tries to distinguish these terms by defining the former as “patterned” & Nozick’s as “historical,” despite neither o’ these having any relevance to these terms. Nor does he describe what he means. It’s clear that Srinivasan’s examples o’ people being poor or rich due to luck are based on the past, & thus just as historical as whatever Nozick’s beliefs are—’less Gordon doesn’t understand what that word means, either.

The example he gives offers no further understanding, either: someone needs a kidney, someone else has 1 ideal for the picking. Should the latter be forced to give it up? He connects this to income, despite many significant differences. He acknowledges that these are morally arbitrary, but nevertheless insists that to redistribute income or kidneys would be wrong ’cause they’re “entitled to them.” He doesn’t answer why or how this doesn’t fall under Srinivasan’s problem.

Furthermore, the income example is flawed, since it’s not intrinsically connected to one’s body & can be redistributed without even touching its owner. If 1 loiterer’s on ’nother’s property, she is not coercing him in any way; in contrast, if the latter does force her to leave, he is using coercion. Only in laissez-faire libertarians’ arbitrary definitions for “coercion,” “freedom,” or “entitled property” is this different; & they have no cause to complain if one refuses to accept their arbitrary definitions.

The question to ask is, if property control—& that’s what it is, the control over others’ use o’ certain property, regardless o’ what they want to call it—is not based on merit, what is it based on? In order for the market to be defended as an objectively just mechanism for distributing property—’bove the public’s opinion or other consequentialist concerns—then it must have an objective measure o’ value to compare it to. If not, then market economics is nonfalsifiable & unscientific—an economic theology.

His linguistic blunders continue:

He does not hold that “any exchange between two people in the absence of direct physical compulsion by one party against the other (or the threat thereof) [is] necessarily free.” He does say that if you face severely limited options, and your predicament comes about because others have acted within their rights, your choice is still voluntary. This is a rather more nuanced claim, a matter that escapes Srinivasan’s attention.

No it isn’t: it’s the same thing. Free & voluntary mean the same thing. If one is not necessarily free then, by definition, their actions are not voluntary. I turn to Oxford & Thesaurus.com ’gain:

What annoys me most ’bout Austrian-schoolers is that relying on deductive reasoning would require godly-perfect logical thinking for a brilliant linguist—keeping in mind that praxeology bases its strength purely on the words it’s based on, rejecting math as well. So it’s shocking how linguistically ignorant Austrian-schoolers are. Or a’least their readers are: Gordan could be intentionally using Orwellian language for propaganda purposes.

He complains ’bout Srinivasan’s confusion, which shows a lack o’ self-awareness, considering the word-twisting he uses. If New York Times writers get libertarianism wrong, it can probably be attributed to self-proclaimed libertarians being so bad @ ’splaining themselves. I mean, this is the New York Times we’re talking ’bout: the same newspaper that has writers who outright brag ’bout how they can’t read. When even I in my ivory tower—that’s what I call my room in my mother’s basement, by the way—can’t understand how A can be A & not A @ the same time, how can you blame them?

Nowhere does Nozick say that the structure of libertarian rights exhausts morality.

Personal anecdote: I just recently started reading an excellent book called To the Point: A Dictionary of Concise Writing that mocks the use o’ vague academicspeak in political writing as a way to evade clear truth. I bring it up ’cause this article has convinced me o’ its writer’s accuracy.

What is the “structure of libertarian rights” & what does he mean by “exhausting” morality? That it only handles some aspects o’ morality, & not all? Then how does it handle morality in other aspects that contradict it? That’s why rational philosophies do “exhaust morality.”

Rather, rights tell us when force or its threat may be permissibly used.

Right. As all rights in all moral systems do. Thank you for reiterating that right-libertarianism is a philosophy & not a study o’ beetle mating habits.

It is not at all the case that anything you are free to do, according to this structure of rights, is morally permissible.

Petty critique, but doesn’t “according to this structure of rights” sound cultish?

Speaking o’ Orwellian language: So Libertarian morals do not simply allow you to do morally just actions… but also immoral actions? Should we add “Injustice is Just” to the Ministry of Truth’s list o’ slogans?

Srinivasan’s whole purpose is to criticize laissez-faire libertarianism’s lack o’ moral coherency. You are acknowledging it yourself. Is that what his argument is? “Yes, but it’s not s’posed to be morally correct”? Then what value does it have as an ethical system. Or does Gordon think “morals” & “ethics” are different, too? (Spoiler alert: they’re not.)

Neither is it the case that moral obligation is confined to freely chosen commitments[.]

So he acknowledges that laissez-faire libertarianism is, in fact, authoritarian in that it forces you to do things gainst your will.

[A]gain, Srinivasan wrongly conflates moral obligations and enforceable obligations.

Probably ’cause she can’t psychically guess what you mean by the latter. Is he describing what one is physically capable o’ doing in a “might makes right” way? ’Cause if he is, with his defense o’ that & his downplaying o’ pesky morals, he seems to be describing nihilism mo’ than laissez-faire libertarianism.

I must confess, with the all o’ the acknowledgements o’ laissez-faire libertarianism’s lack o’ ethics, I suspect Gordon may secretly be a leftist who snuck into the Mises Compound in an attempt to bring it down from the inside. That’s the only explanation for why these arguments are so bad.

While Gordon accuses Srinivasan o’ conflating synonyms, he appears to be unable to understand why someone writing on morality would be obsessing over moral obligations. How absurd o’ her.

Srinivasan goes on to reject Nozick’s claim that a “minimal state” is redistributive. I’d complain ’bout a so-called libertarian using the weaselly term “minimal state” to shroud their hypocritical view on when coercion is useful—when it benefits them—& when it isn’t—when it benefits the poor.

Gordon gives 3 reasons why this isn’t true:

People are not forced to pay for the minimal state, though they would find it in their in their interest to do so[.]

A consistent theme: the true difference ’tween laissez-faire libertarianism & authoritarianism is that the latter is a’least honest, while the former plays word games like this to hide its authoritarian nature. Like a mob boss, Gordon says, “Theoretically you don’t have to support our government; but if you don’t, well, I’d hate to see what happens to you…”

[A]nd the monopoly prices charged by the dominant agency really are redistributive, not just seemingly so.

Gordon offers no evidence. He literally just says, “It is so. So there.”

Further, the minimal state does not arise entirely through free bargaining. The Dominant Protective Association prohibits other agencies and independents from imposing risky decision procedures on its clients.

The bullying commies…

It’s unfortunate that the Mises Institute didn’t select someone with a better knowledge o’ libertarianism to write ’bout it. But the article, replete with errors as it is, may do some good: it may bring the incoherency o’ libertarian ideas to the attention o’ readers who otherwise might not have realized them. After all:

As Quine once said after Nozick had complained to him of a negative review, I think by Carlin Romano, of Philosophical Explanations, “Every knock a boost.”

I concur. “Every knock a boost”! Thank you, Quine: a great fortune-cookie writer is you.

Addendum:

David Gordon’s totally a leftist. I bet that Resurrecting Marx, though seeming to be an attack gainst him, is his way o’ sneaking his vile Marxism into the pure Church o’ the Market. I’m on to you.

Look @ that cover. Marx looks so disappointed. “You spent your money on this? Truly?”

Can the ’analytical Marxists’ save Marx from himself. Gordon says no way.

To be fair, Gordon does make a good point: it’s hard to save someone when they’ve been dead for over a century. & if resurrection is the goal, Marxists should know that they need a’least a gallon o’ bourgeois blood for the sacrifice to succeed.

Addendum 2:

Hilariously, there’s a tiny disclaimer @ the bottom o’ the article that says, “Note: The views expressed in Daily Articles on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.” If this article is evidence o’ the quality o’ “Daily Articles,” then ’twas wise to specify this.

Right-libertarians generally hold a simplistic interpretation o’ reality—’specially economic reality—largely based on Western traditions, safely unhindered in a world where the debate is whether capitalism is awesome or “too much freedom.”

Thus, it’s no huge surprise when I read Randall Halcombe’s “Joseph Stiglitz on Crony Capitalism” @ the official church o’ Mises, the Mises Economics Blog¹, which reads like a middle-schooler’s attempt to discuss the political economy:

Although Joseph Stiglitz has a reputation as one of the most prominent defenders of big government…

I always thought Karl Marx had that reputation, but never mind. I’m sure Stiglitz scoffs @ the pure “anarchy” present in “Marxist-Leninist” states like North Korea.

It does appear to me that throughout the political spectrum, from left to right, there is a substantial consensus that government is the cause of many of the problems people perceive.

It’s shocking that problems in a political system might be caused by the organization that manages said political system. If Halcombe had taken only a minute to think ’bout it, he might’ve realized that opposition to too much capitalism—& especially it in general—in a capitalist country presupposes criticism o’ the government that maintains said capitalist system. I don’t know what logic exists in the belief that the US would be better off if ’twere socialist—or whatever alternative one wants—but that the government need not change to be, you know, socialist. It’d be quite a creative solution: change the political system without changing it @ all!

To be fair, I have to remember that right-libertarians are used to debating liberals; so this “solution” has likely been encountered in debates many times before.

The disagreement is over how to solve those problems.

(Slaps forehead.) So that’s the rub. I was so sure that with the left & right agreeing on the government needing to change in some way—a terribly specific diagnosis—they’d surely agree on how. We were so close to bringing that bipartisan Utopia dwelling in the Third Way’s fever dreams to fruition!

He goes on to explain how Stiglitz criticizes income inequality, caused by the “negative impact o’ government”—which isn’t equivalent to “too much impact.” He further connects Stiglitz to right economists through their criticism o’ cronyism, carefully ignoring the vital role the market plays in causing cronyism (I’ll delve in this later in this article).

I am encouraged to see that people throughout the political spectrum, from Stiglitz to Stockman to Schweizer, recognize government power as the source o’ many o’ our contemporary problems.

As we all know, Stiglitz is right there with Bakunin & Kropotkin on the far left.

& just ’cause you found some other guys in your li’l club who call themselves right-wing doesn’t mean they represent a significant role in the general movement. I can just imagine Mitch McConnel with his arm in mid-stretch to grab his cash from MoldyFumes, inc.², only to stop with his pupils dilated & his hands grasping his hair, screaming, “No! I can’t! What would the famous Stockman & Schweizer think?”

Those on the left see more government, and better government, as the remedy to poor government policies, which seems counter-intuitive.

Sigh. This is the equivalent o’ a 3rd-grader’s attempt to describe leftism & fails. There’s no such thing as “mo’ government,” ’less one means “mo’ people in government,” which is, indeed, what those further on the left want: direct democracy. If the government exists, it exists, whether it uses police force to maintain 1 resource distribution or ’nother, or whether it chooses to ignore resource distribution entirely (note: never heard o’ a market defender backing this last choice). Only supporting government when it defends one’s riches, but not when it actually expects compensation for that, isn’t “libertarian”; it’s just narcissistic.

Why would we think a bigger government would work better than the government mess we already have?

1. Nobody calls for “bigger” government, ’cause that’s not a real thing. That’s an abstract label people on the right made-up.

The only way that argument makes sense is if we’re arguing ’tween splitting up the US or not. That’s not the discussion @ all, so Halcombe’s clearly mixing his words up.

2. The current government mess has nothing to do with the government being “too big.” If one’s belief is that the problem with the US’s economy is the rich being too powerful, then obviously the problem is that the government prefers the rich—that is what Stiglitz was actually saying. I don’t know why Halcombe had to complicate it with this abstract nonsense.

Stiglitz has already explained how all the incentives lean toward making government more responsive to the elite, at the expense of the masses.

& this is caused by either income inequality—which can only be fixed by income redistribution—or a lack o’ sufficient laws gainst excess lobbying. The solution to both requires “mo’ government” in the right-libertarian argot; hence Stiglitz’s diagnosis.

I don’t think Halcombe understands the implications o’ this point—though, to be fair, Stiglitz may not, either, considering his claim that “[i]t doesn’t have to be this way.” Think: the incentives make government corrupt. That’s the opposite o’ what Halcombe is arguing: rather than just the government corrupting the market, this shows that the market corrupts the government.

If anything, this shows that pure laisssez-faire is self-defeating: the economic inequality it’ll create will also create unequal influence over government, giving the rich superior control over the majority—as already happens now. If some o’ them benefit from cronyism—& some do, which is why they push for it—then they will have the superior means to make that goal become legal reality. Thus, laissez-faire naturally creates the very cronyism that s’posedly violates it.

That’s the paradoxical nature o’ power: power itself is all that can prevent other power. That’s what a “power vacuum” is: when there’s no power structure, there’s nothing to stop some other group from taking power. Thus, a lack o’ government intervention, rather than making society freer, only allows them to be defacto replaced by rich citizens who are not so shy ’bout using their economic advantages to enforce their own power. If anything, the imaginary “less government” solution is what’s counter-intuitive.

That also ’splains why the problem with cronyism is far deeper than just there not being ’nough “wise” economists like Stiglitz who somehow figured out that US politics & economics is corrupt—not unlike a 50-year-old finally learning that Santa Claus isn’t real. The very same cronyism gives those that benefit from it superior power over government, thus making it difficult to change it in any way that goes gainst what they want—which is said cronyism. It’s cyclical, with the market corrupting the government corrupting the market corrupting the government, & so on. This is why said cronyism is not new, but goes far back into US history—& will surely continue to thrive, regardless o’ the paper-spined promises o’ such benign capitalists as Stiglitz.

But if we agree that government has caused many of the problems we all see–all of us from the political left to right–then we are part-way toward finding a solution that we all agree would fix those problems. My thought is: eliminate what we all agree is the cause.

You know, I’ve just realized that there actually is something that laissez-faire libertarians who want a capitalist society without government & moderate liberals who want a capitalist society without cronyism & poverty can both agree they oppose: brutal reality.

I’m always bewildered by rich conservatives who criticize rich liberals as elites not due to their being rich—said conservatives are also rich, after all—but for their “intellectualism,” which is essentially their actually putting some effort or skill into deserving their economic success. This is why I’m less bummed that an elite like Noam Chomsky is rich than I am that elites like Thomas Friedman or David Brooks are; Chomsky a’least appears to put effort & skill into his work—including using these things called “citations”—to deserve economic rewards, whereas realizing that Friedman & Brooks apparently meet the threshold for writing @ the New York Times makes me wonder, who doesn’t meet the threshold? After all, I’m sure my mother could barf out some “Chicken Soup for the Vapid Upper-Middle-Class Soul,” too; & she’s working-class: she’s 1 o’ “the people”—as opposed to those Americans who merely look like 1 o’ “the people,” but are truly snatchers ready to force you to drink expensive lattes & make fun o’ your religious views. If they truly wanted to fight for “the people,” why don’t they fight for my mother writing for the New York Times¹.

Ross Douthat—’nother pasty-faced writer the New York Times scrounged just to fit their quota o’ what they think might be “conservatives”—showed this perfectly a few months ago in an article wherein he starts by literally bragging ’bout how he couldn’t understand how to read a simple book on economics. Most people would be ashamed o’ such a statement & rationally keep it to themselves. Douthat, however, shouts it on the rooftops that he is too stupid to read regular English, just like the (offensive) imaginary “working-class” stereotype he pretends to know. Keep in mind that Douthat is not paid the multi-thousands he probably makes to do physical labor like he imagines “the people” are; he’s paid for his “intellect.” By bragging ’bout how stupid he is, he’s literally bragging ’bout how he gets paid for sucking.

How can the New York Times whine ’bout people not wasting their money on their product & ’stead perusing free blogs when they refuse to have standards higher than blogs? Unless the New York Times is prepared to explain how a guy who literally brags ’bout how stupid he is is worth mo’ than the average blogger.

Anti-elite conservatism itself is odd, considering its economic philosophy. I hope I’m not being controversial by pointing out the obvious fact that capitalism is inherently elitist. I mean, that’s literally a value it upholds: some people are better than others, & thus they deserve mo’ money. What other measure would conservatives expect us to use for deciding who should make mo’ money? (That question’s rhetorical, ’course: the answer is obviously “that they do what we want them to do”—what I like to call the “Political Theory o’ Value.”)

It is an unquestionable fact that working class people make much less money than intellectualists in any capitalist system—or any economic system, truly—that has ever existed & ever will. I dare anyone to show me the imaginary world where the janitors or garbage people are the economic 1%. That leaves 2 options: either working-class people are inferior to intellectualists & deserve their inferior economic status or capitalism is an unjust system. Trying to have both is incoherent.

Also, what am I s’posed to think when the best taunt Douthat can make gainst socialists is that they’re such smarty-shirts? What am I s’posed to think when the actually competent elites are raving commies, while the people who most defend capitalism brag ’bout how illiterate they are?

I don’t know if it’s humans in general—I lean toward this option—or if Americans, being so rich & pampered, are particularly susceptible to narcissism; but Americans have this strange refusal to actually examine the logical consequences o’ their ethical systems & ’stead demand that this & that & that also all apply @ the same time, even if they contradict each other. Rich pundits must have their cake & eat it, too: they want to be privileged, but they also want to be praised for fighting gainst privilege. That’s the American Dream, isn’t it: the amazing anti-elite elite; the powerful leader that will empower the people. One would think that in order for “the people” to be empowered that they’d have the power themselves—through their own voices in their own articles or TV shows or their own wealth; but in American fantasyland, that’s apparently absolutely zany.

@ the risk o’ sounding uncouth, I have a simpler way to determine whether one is truly on the side o’ the working-class that’s based on actual concrete reality, & not poetic abstract pseudoscientific nonsense: is one working-class? If yes, then one is on the side o’ the working-class; if no, then @ best one can have empathy for them, but probably one won’t understand their experience ’nough to be able to make decisions for them.

If one truly wants to help the lower-classes, one should allow the lower-classes to take control over their own lives by giving them direct control over the political & economic system they are subjected to. This does not mean “getting rid o’ government completely” or “making it weak ’nough to drown,”—which oddly ’nough, always seems to keep the pieces that benefit the rich—nor does it mean finding the magical benign rich leader who will supposedly run the economy in lower-class people’s interests, despite not being lower-class, & thus not understanding their interests, not to mention having a self-interest gainst that still biases them toward the rich.

Here’s the question one should ask when one sees the rich guy on television or in newspapers argue ’bout who truly serves the working-class: why can’t the working-class themselves answer that? The answer’s obvious: any poor slob can’t just walk into the New York Times & put his article in, nor can she just walk into a television station, go onto set while they’re shooting, & give her 10 cents. The means o’ communication are privately-owned: they are controlled by the rich, & thus that is who they serve. “Anti-elite” conservatives are eggs calling the sour cream white. Liberals are elite for the same reason they are: ’cause anyone who is on television or in the newspapers by definition o’ their contrast gainst those who aren’t are inherently elitist. We don’t know any poor “liberals” or “conservatives” ’cause we don’t know any poor people @ all—& we certainly don’t get to hear their opinions in the media. They are “unpersons” (much mo’ than the historical figures we usually use that word to describe, such as Trotsky, who, incidentally, is less an “unperson” in history than, say, the poor women strikers who started the Russian Revolution in the 1st place).

Neither conservatives nor moderate liberals have any logic in criticizing elitism for the simple fact that they support inherently elitist political & economic systems. Not only is capitalism obviously elitist, but republicanism—both parliamentary & presidential systems—by creating separate classes o’ “government” & “citizen” (the former always being in the rich class) is also inherently elitist. To put it simply, the United States is inherently elitist & to change that would require nothing short o’ a 2nd American Revolution.

That would be awfully dirty however—& would not be guaranteed to end elitism, anyway, but possibly exacerbate it—so ’stead ditsy elites themselves waste everyone’s time squabbling over how other ditsy elites are such elites, & I begin to understand why the actual non-elites throw ’way their newspaper & watch Family Guy³.

Perhaps these elites should focus less on accusing each other o’ being elites & mo’ on trying to put effort into their work so that they can a’least have a good explanation for their elite status. ’Cause as a lower-class person who knows how to fucking read, when I see some rich asshole brag ’bout how stupid he is—just like you poor morons, amirite?—I’m mo’ inclined to be pissed than mollified. Mo’ importantly, I’m mo’ inclined to vote the actually-smart person into power ’stead. Conservatives might want to remember that this election when they see the majority o’ the lower-class vote gainst them.

One of the many pile drivers gainst reality laissez-faire libertarians deliver is their stated goal of separating politics and economics—commonly compared to separating politics and religion, but more accurately like trying to separate hunger from access to food.

A good place to start is to ask, what is political power? It’s obviously the power governments hold, but over what do they hold that power? Countries, right? And what are countries? Land and everything inside?

Ah, then we have found our answer: political power is resource power—economic power.

I can already hear the complaints: governments don’t just control resources; they also control people. False: they control people who use certain resources, just as capitalists do; in the government’s case, they control people who use their land just as capitalists control those who use their offices, factories, land, and other means of production. That’s what economic power is. What use is economic power if you can’t control how other people use it? Am I to understand that property rights simply protect capitalists’ rights to keep their factories and offices from awakening and attacking them like Smart House? And if so, great, then I can sleep in Microsoft headquarters and they certainly won’t call the cops to force me to leave, correct?

This logic can lead to interesting conclusions. Let’s begin a thought experiment wherein we accept capitalist ideology. Under this ethical system, if an individual and his organization owns a certain collection of resources—in this case, let’s say land and the material within—he has the right to control it in any way he wants, right? There is no limit to how large or small this collection of resources is, right? And as we mentioned before, this includes controlling how anyone uses this property. After all, if they don’t like it, they can go somewhere else, right?

Now, let us say that this individual’s name is Joseph Stalin, this organization is a little corporation known as the Soviet Union, and this collection of resources is Russia. ‘Course, there are obvious differences between the Soviet Union and the US; but it’s important to understand the nature of these differences. Corporations do, indeed, have limits in terms of how they treat the people who use their property because of government regulation. It is the lack of regulation—capitalism taken to its fullest extent—that allowed the Soviet Union to be so totalitarian.

All we need to accept this comparison are to accept two relatively reasonable assumptions:

1. Call the Soviet Union a corporation.
2. Accept that the Soviet Union is the rightful owner of Russia.

Point one is tautological. Capitalism would be the saddest ideology ever if it based its comparative power purely on what word we call the people in power. Furthermore, if this is the case, then state socialists should simply call for the US to be officially called a “corporation.”

Point two would probably be more controversial. It should be, but not much more than any capitalist resource distribution. Surely Americans would not pretend that such historical inconveniences such as the theft of the entire country from indigenous people and slavery would not lead to unfair resource distribution—one that does not appear to have been fixed in any way. At the very least, there is no objective proof that the US—or any capitalist country—has a particularly meritorious resource distribution (See “What the Subjective Theory Truly Means for a Meritorious Resource Distribution”), and thus theirs are backed by the same force as socialist distributions: by ownership that the state tolerates and that which it does not (what is called “theft”).

What we get from the inanity of “laissez-faire” is an Orwellian lie: support for an economy free from government intervention based on government intervention—authoritarian libertarianism. Thus we read the wise words from influential Austrian economists, Ludwig von Mises in the aptly-titled “Deception of Government Intervention”:

In the market economy the individuals are free from government intervention as long as they do not offend against the duly promulgated laws of the land. [para 3].

Translation: the market is free when individuals are free from government intervention, ‘cept those I think are necessary. This is also known as every economic ideology in the world. I’m sure Keynes and Marx would agree.

Actually, speaking of Marx, this confession of capitalism’s need for government intervention to defend “laws of the land” becomes funnier—and through which Mises seems to bolster my very point himself—when he criticizes those vile “middle-roaders” who tolerate even just a little intervention:

Such a policy of government interference with the market phenomena was already recommended by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto. [para 8].

…

In this way, the government is forced to add to its first intervention more and more decrees of interference until it has actually eliminated any influence of the market factors. [para 13].

As we can clearly see, capitalism is just one step on the long path toward communism.

This self-contradiction leaves “libertarianism” with a logical dilemma. So-called libertarians say we need less government intervention than social democrats, and yet say we need more intervention than anarchists in order to protect from nongovernmental control (such as theft, wherein the have-nots take control of property from the haves). However, even outright socialists also only call for government intervention they feel is necessary in order to prevent nongovernmental control from corporations and the rich.

If we accept “government intervention should be eliminated, except when it’s necessary” as “libertarian,” then Keynesians, social democrats, and even socialists can just as accurately call themselves “libertarians”—indeed, some call themselves “libertarian socialists” or “libertarian communists.”

If we only accept a complete elimination of economic regulation as libertarian, then libertarianism becomes incompatible with capitalism. Without the state to uphold property ownership through suppression of theft, the system of ownership completely collapses. Indeed, libertarianism becomes self-defeating: without economic regulation, there is nothing to stop others from setting themselves up as governments and regulating the economy, whether they call themselves “corporations” or “government.”

Thus we see the sad state of the dichotomy ‘tween “capitalism” and “socialism”—two economic systems contrasted by tautology and unfounded assumptions. Leave all illusions at the door: if “socialism” is any economic system run and bolstered by the government, then “economics” and “socialism” are synonyms, and “capitalism” is simply one of many types of socialism.

The pretend breakthrough of economic thought that is the discovery that resources cannot be objectively qualified is often claimed to be proof that “socialism” is infeasible, despite this idea already being noted by socialists such as Proudhon[1] and even Marx[2] long before the neoclassicals and Austrian-schoolers. It does, indeed, prove that an economy managed by a tiny minority separated from the public is infeasible—if one is naïve enough to support such a society. However, the subjective theory’s implications go beyond “socialism”: It discredits any attempt at creating objective meritorious economic outcomes, period—including market methods.

The conclusion most economists derive from the subjective theory is that, because there is no objective method of qualifying an object’s value, we should just let the people decide for themselves. Cost is based not on effort, but on what consumers “choose” to pay for an object in a “voluntary” trade. Often, this is stated with a metaphor for democracy: People vote with their money on which objects have value[3].

Well, already, we have obvious problems with the claim that the subjective theory supports capitalism: An economy controlled by the “people”—AKA the public—sounds suspiciously socialist. Second, voting only works if it is based on “one-vote, one-person” principles, which is obviously incompatible with capitalism, which is characterized by unequal income distributions. This would make any meritorious economic distribution self-defeating: The inequalities it would create would also create advantages derived from better economic control (more “money votes”), which are independent of skill—and thus unmeritorious.

Furthermore, while promarket economists like to discuss the supposed “voluntary” nature of market trade, what they completely ignore is that trade is inherently reliant on the distribution of resources: It is not enough to say that Person A volunteers to trade Object A for Object B and Person B volunteers to trade Object B for Object A; both Persons A and B, as well as everyone else, must also agree that Person A is the rightful owner of Object A and that Person B is the rightful owner of Object B in order for this trade to truly be voluntary. Those who believe Object B does not belong to Person B would logically question what right Person B has to accept values in exchange for a possession Person B had no right to exchange.

This ownership is usually defended as objectively-proven on the claim that people “create” their property themselves; but this is false: Nobody creates property by oneself; such an action is called “magic.” Instead, all production relies on access to natural resources or capital created from earlier natural resources. Thus, one’s ability to “create” is reliant on one’s access to the world’s resources—it is based on the previous distribution of resources.

Even if we accept the claim that gaining more wealth earlier in life makes one deserve the later economic boost more than those who gain wealth later in life, inequalities of birth date disrupt this: Those born earlier gained an advantage over those born later not based on inherent effort or skills, and thus unmeritoriously.

And even if we accept that, one still must ensure that the current distribution of resources is objectively proven to be just. This leads to the key flaw with the subjective theory’s defense of the market: It is based on circular logic. It attempts to defend the current distribution of resources based on a market system that is backed on the current distribution of resources. This means that the distribution of resources in the past affects the present and distribution of resources in the present affects the future: Unjust riches lead to more unjust riches; unjust poverty lead people to gain much less than they would have if they had the right amount of resources.

This is admitted by a few well-known economists. Sraffa noted that “general equilibrium theory shows that a decentralized market economy leads to an outcome that can be labeled optimum, i. e. a [sic] best. However this best rests upon two very tough assumptions: 1. That the existing distribution of wealth is sacrosanct.”[4] Samuelson and Nordhaus in what is probably the most well-read economics textbook in the US, after two paragraphs hailing Adam Smith and his “invisible hand,” begrudgingly mumble, “A final reservation comes when the income distribution is politically or ethically unacceptable. When any of these elements occur, Adam Smith’s invisible-hand doctrine breaks down and government may want to step in to mend the flawed invisible hand.”[5]

So, how do we objectively prove that the current distribution of resources is “sacrosanct”? We can’t. Because resource distribution is contingent on the past, and that distribution based on its past, and so on, it would require an intellectual god—someone with the knowledge of virtually all past history—to sort through all of the disruptions in the past—every instance of theft, imperialism, slavery, and so on—not to mention the subjective nature of who was responsible for what work in collective jobs.

Sraffa, Samuelson, and Nordhaus all heavily understate the problems the subjective theory creates for capitalism. Keep in the mind, the whole purpose for any market is to distribute resources in a meritorious way—that is what the “invisible hand” is supposed to do (well, the mainstream misinterpretation of what the “invisible hand” is supposed to be, at least)[6]. What Samuelson and Nordhaus’s point essentially means is that the market is useful for distributing resources justly, unlike government-run economies—except when it isn’t. Such a claim is utterly absurd. The very subjective nature of the “invisible hand” breaking down when resource distribution is “politically or ethically unacceptable” means that the level of government intervention needed or not needed is arbitrary—except based on what politics or subjective ethics say: What the people democratically choose. Thus, Samuelson and Nordhaus’s argument does not support capitalism, but democratic socialism. Even if the public chose an economic system and distribution similar to capitalism, their legitimacy comes not from the disproved inherent validity of capitalism, but based on democratic choice. On the other hand, if said public chose a socialist, or even communist, resource distribution, that would be just as legitimate.

More importantly, “property rights”—the core of capitalism—cannot be defended if there is no objective way to prove who rightly owns what. Any claim of unfair theft, from either the government or any other entity, can technically be nullified, since who justly owns what cannot be objectively determined. Until it can be, “property rights” are fiat, and thus capitalist laws that defend said “property rights” are, too.

Indeed, that this makes capitalist resource distribution defended purely on what the state chooses to enforce reveals the absurdity of the whole “capitalism” vs. “socialism” debate entirely: “Capitalism” is inherently a form of “state socialism.” The only reason premarket economists could chide social justice “busy-bodies” for trying to mess with the market was the claim that the resource distribution created by their particular economic system is supposedly objective, unlike the “busy-bodies,” who try to base it on their own biased judgments. Who are they to say who deserves what? But since this claim of objectivity is false, that makes promarketers just as much “busy-body” tinkerers and their markets just as much forced onto the public as any democratic socialist system.

If any economic systems benefit from this epiphany, it would be those that do not hold objectively-proven meritorious resource distribution as a goal, such as an economy in which all citizens share all resources or “parecon” (participatory economics), in which resource distribution is decided by democratic choice. The latter is particularly notable, as it is exactly the solution the subjective theory truly leads toward—economic democracy. It also follows Samuelson and Nordhaus’s accidental logic leading to resource distribution being decided by political and ethical forces.

Moreover, it fits the simple nature of subjectivity: Democracy is how we deal with the subjectivity of general ethics—we certainly don’t call for some supposedly enlightened individual or futilely attempt to create mathematically-perfect models to decide for us how a country as a whole should be run. If resource distribution is truly a subjective issue, it stands to reason that it should be decided by democratic means as well.

Steal Joe was a freedom-loving American,
So he did what he had to do:
He overthrew the tyrannical government,
So his economic chains could finally be eschewed.

Now he could do with his property what he desired;
Nobody would boss him around.
He charged whatever rent he concocted;
No regulations to keep him down.
After all, it was his property;
He had the right to control it all by himself.
If any of those socialist sponges had a problem
They could go away somewhere else.
If those violent thugs caused trouble,
Why, he’d have to teach them with his own might;
So he hired his own personal military
To ensure nobody violated his ownership rights.
And since this property was his,
He had the right to devise all of its rules;
So if those grumbling commies had the nerve to criticize him
He’d throw out all of those fools.
And if nobody else would take them—
For they had the rights to reject them, as well—
Why, Steal Joe would have no choice
But to lock them up in jail.

Steal Joe toasted himself to his newly-created libertarian dream:
Finally, he created an economy renowned for its efficiency.
Now, all he needed was a name for this new vision:
And so, to reward himself for his good deeds, he dubbed it Stealinism.

Originally Written: February 21-May 30, 2013.

There is a depressing type of mental pathogen infecting the media called “centrism”; no, not the legitimate support of beliefs that just-so-happen to be between what Democrats and Republicans support, but the idea that one must support what falls into the culturally-manufactured ideology known as the “center” in order to be considered proper. Real discussions of ethics or philosophy should be left at the door. I hope I do not have to explain why an ideology based so much on an arbitrary conformity toward a made-up cultural norm is irrational—since it fits so clearly within the very definition of not even thinking.

So we have Ezra Klein, a self-titled “wonk.” That’s right, Klein is so pathetic he has to call himself smart, since certainly nobody who can think for herself ever would. See, he’s smart because he uses big words like “chained-CPI,” which is so complicated it requires one to look it up on the internet, which nobody can do! Of course, using big words and complicated economic terms is a demonstration of intelligence, if one is a child. Never mind if these terms are used for simpleminded folksy wisdom. It’s clear that Klein has little respect for the little people, so it is unsurprising that he does not expect them to actually look at the content of his writing, but only marvel at his fancy wording and nod their head.

This mental vacancy is best shown in a recent article charmingly titled, “How U.S. Politics Was Hijacked by Partisans.” Here’s a hint: Anytime a political writer complains about those mean old “partisans”—and they’re not talking about petty group alignments, rather than actual ideological differences, as Klein is truly writing about here—be rest assured that there is no intellectual value to be found there. I don’t care what self-proclaimed “independents” say: Everybody is biased. People should be biased when it comes to ethics. That is how people have intellectual arguments. Leftists write what they believe in, right-wingers write what they believe in, and, in theory, democracy should allow us to decide in a peaceful manner which particular views should win. Of course, the US is not (nor has it ever been) a legitimate democracy, so this doesn’t work so well (though, as we shall see, Klein is glad about this).

He starts his article saying, “Power has devolved to the people. And the people hate it.” He does not actually provide evidence for this anywhere in this article. Yes, I suppose he does show that popular support for US elections has fallen by decreased voter turnout; but he has done nothing to show that people have more control over the electoral system nowadays but with an unproven cliché. My favorite is how he talks about “when party bosses chose nominees in smoke-filled rooms” and when the electorate was controlled by big business. You know, like yesterday. Apparently ALEC and the rise in lobbying[1] are completely unknown to this so-called political “wonk.”

He goes on to further prove that this made-up empowerment of the people has led to the spoiling of the electoral system by describing Michelle Bachmann’s supposed “grassroots” rise to power—except that he specifically talks about her recent failure. The fact that this is one anecdotal piece of evidence doesn’t help matters, either. Is he trying to claim that extremists like Bachmann have never existed before now? Has this “wonk” never heard of a man named Barry Goldwater?

All of this, added with some research from political scientists, leads to the gist of the article, which is that since we’ve opened the electoral system to the unwashed masses politics have become more “polarized.” This is bad, I guess, because… It is. The idea that as the electoral system opens up to a wider range of people (supposedly) this would allow for a wider range of ideas is supposed to be surprising, I guess. More importantly, this is very bad. Instead, we should return to the good old days when “the system’s gatekeepers played an underappreciated role in moderating U.S. politics.” Klein ends by warning us that “The door is open.” Oh no! We can’t let people run this country themselves (also known as democracy)! Instead, we must trust our beloved political leaders who “have internalized the boundaries of the politically possible.” See, Klein shows that by… He doesn’t prove it at all. You’re just supposed to accept that there are some things that are “politically possible”—those that fit within a certain culturally-manufactured threshold known as the “center”—and those that are just too radical, man! You know, like ending slavery and having a republican government—also ideas that were considered “impossible” in their times. Nevertheless, if Klein says certain extreme ideas are impossible without any evidence (and, indeed, without even saying what these ideas are), then it must be true.

What’s most idiotic is that despite Klein’s complaints about partisanship, he actually praises political leaders for being “more likely to hold positions that are wholly consistent with one party or the other’s agenda,” while he quotes a political scientists saying, “If you give me a member of the public and tell me where they stand on gay marriage, I can do a bit better than chance in guessing what else they believe, but not that much better than chance.” So the people are dumb because… they actually base their beliefs on ethics themselves, and not just on what party they happen to be a part of. Indeed, it is surprising that when politicians work for a party they are more likely to sacrifice any semblance of principles just so their careers can succeed. I just don’t understand how this could possibly be good.

Literally, Klein’s whole complaint is just that the public’s ideas just-so-happen to not fall within the Democratic and Republican parties’ policies. Maybe that should say more about the ethical value of the Democratic and Republican parties than about the supposed dangers of increased democracy (once again, unproven).

His claim that “Few doubt Fiorina’s broad point that a more open political system has further polarized politics and frustrated the public” not only doesn’t stand up, it plainly contradicts what he just spent the whole article saying. It seems clear that the public is not frustrated at polarization—they seem to support it; what they’re frustrated with are the corrupt Democratic and Republican parties, which explains why they’ve dropped out of the election. When an election system tries to limit your choices to two corrupt organizations, allowing no finer control, nor options neither group supports, the rational thing to do is to declare such an electoral system inherently corrupt and illegitimate. Ezra Klein should aim his ire at such a corrupt electoral system, saturated with bribery (euphemistically called “lobbying”) and monopolization. But instead he complains about the public themselves just being too stupid to just play along with the game, already!

What this reveals is a creepy authoritarian sentiment in Klein and other so-called “centrists’” viewpoints. They can’t accept that most people don’t care about their silly little gossipy political battles between this politician and that—what he himself admits is a “niche hobby”—and that they would rather focus on absurd concepts, such as morality—morality that happens to go beyond what the monopolistic two-party state has to offer. In essence, people are starting to actually think for themselves, and that involves going beyond centrists’ made-up threshold of what are “proper”—or “possible,” in Klein’s words—ideas.

In reality, a healthy political system is one that has polarized political discussions; those are the systems that are free enough that allow such things as differing opinions. We have a name for political systems that keep discussions within a certain “proper” threshold; we call them “totalitarian.” That in this second Great Depression such an antidemocratic sentiment would exist not just in the mind of “libertarians” and conservatives (I can find plenty of examples of that, if one cannot find the many themselves), but in influential “liberals” such as Klein reveals a worrisome pattern of American political thought—one that has scary parallels in history.

A major flaw in the way we look at economics is that it is constantly restrained to the dichotomy of “progovernment” vs. “antigovernment”—often mistakenly described as “socialism” vs. “capitalism”—neither of which is a particularly accurate reflection of reality.

The idea that we should even discuss whether there should be economic regulations at all is absurd when compared to other issues: After all, we do not question whether or not we should have social safety laws at all—we do not view the issue as a choice between a draconian prison state wherein the government puts you in jail for any minor infraction vs. a society in which murder, rape, and theft are legal. Any rational person would be able to distinguish between just laws and unjust laws, and thus one should at least be able to distinguish between draconian economic regulations and less draconian economic regulations.

The Myth of Economic Freedom and the Double Standards of Laissez-Faire

For one thing, the concept of an unregulated economy is a myth. Every economy is regulated to some degree, even if it is based on whoever is able to kill their competition—which, it should be pointed out, is hardly more ethical than an economic dictatorship. If we are to define “freedom” as the ability for each individual to do whatever she wants, then a society can only be free in instances wherein there is no scarcity. For instance, freedom of speech is possible because one’s speech cannot prevent another from giving their opinion[1]. However, because economics is based on scarcity, it is impossible for everyone to get what she wants. If two people each want control over land, then there must be some way to regulate that conflict of interest.

Capitalism is itself inherently reliant on state regulation and thus is hardly a “free” economy. What is often called “property rights” is actually property control maintained by state power. If an individual tries to use property deemed to be a certain individual’s or organization’s—what is called “theft” or “trespassing”—then that individual or group will sic the government on them in the same way that corporations who violate regulations may be suppressed by the government. Interestingly, the latter should actually be considered less oppressive, since it rarely involves the level of violence as the former. Nevertheless, laissez-faire not only expects the former, but demands it, while the latter is prohibited.

Indeed, this double standard leads to absurd policies in terms of domestic issues. For instance, by logic putting poor thieves in jail should be considered just as “socialist” as giving them government assistance; both cost tax dollars and involve government force. In fact, the latter is often more cost effective, since it allows poor people to still possibly be productive workers, while the former completely separates them from the work force[2]. And yet, the former is acceptable—demanded, even—in a laissez-faire economy, whereas the latter is condemned. In this case, the only consistent pattern is that government intervention is only acceptable if it punishes people, but not if it helps people—a depressingly antisocial ethical rubric.

A more accurate definition of the conflict between the “progovernment” and “antigovernment” forces is whether the current distribution of income is ethical. Those who support laissez-faire policies believe that it is and that the government should not tamper with the natural distribution of the market—in fact, they believe the government must use force to maintain it against individuals who try to redistribute income themselves through theft. The “progovernment” forces can actually be divided into two camps: “Modern liberals,” who generally support the market, but believe that some intervention is necessary to keep it practical, and “socialists,” who believe the market is inherently flawed and should be replaced with a different economic system entirely. The pro-laissez-faire camps almost always base their views on government intervention on their support of meritocracy.

Questioning Capitalist Meritocracy

What is odd about the common assumption that the capitalist market is meritocratic is that there is absolutely no evidence to back it up. It is almost always based on circular logic: Capitalism is proven to be meritocratic by defining merit based on who succeeds in the market. If one questions, say, whether Donald Trump is truly skilled enough to deserve his immense riches an apologist will likely either say, “Well, if he’s successful, he must be,” or accuse the questioner of being jealous—which is odd, since nobody would ever accuse those who criticize Stalin’s control of the Soviet Union’s economy as being jealous of his ability to maintain power.

The claim that those who are unsuccessful should just “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” follows the same logic: Could not one say that those who were not successful enough to be in Stalin’s place in the Soviet Union should have quit whining and “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” so that they were dictator instead? Once again, the claim that laissez-faire is free while socialism is controlled is based on an assumption—one that was discredited earlier.

Indeed, the idea that one could “pull herself up by her bootstraps” contradicts the reality of economics. In reality, one needs access to some resources—whether natural or capital—in order to make something; to do otherwise would be magic. Thus, if one wants to be a computer programmer one needs access to a computer; if one wants to grow food one needs access to land, seeds, water, and other materials. The same applies to intelligence, actually: We generally think of education as a factor of personal choice, but it is actually controlled by external elements. After all, nobody can just learn mathematics by oneself; one needs access to literature or other sources from which to glean this material.

Thus, if one is utterly destitute “pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps” is literally impossible. Meanwhile, those who have control over resources have an advantage independent of their own skill. Indeed, the property owners are not even necessary for value to be created; all that is needed is labor and property. Workers could simply use the land to make their own value and keep the profits for themselves[3]. It is only because of state-backed property control that property owners are able to force workers to sell the majority of the value of their labor so that they may have access to such property (since resources without labor is at least a little more useful than labor without resources, which, as stated earlier, is utterly useless). This is often called “exploitation,” but should more accurately be called “extortion”: It is the use of the threat of force that makes workers submit to owners, not inherent merit. It is ironic that such a system is often contrasted with Leninist statism for it is actually very similar; the only difference is that “capitalism” somewhat separates the police from the corporations (and is more a case of feuding economic dictators than a single economic dictator), whereas “socialism” has them combined. In fact, the irony is that the only reason liberal democracies are so much better than Leninism is not due to absence of state interference but because there is a somewhat democratic interference from the government that ensures that corporations do not overstep people’s rights too much. If a capitalist country were to rid itself of its “government” completely one would simply end up with an assortment of corporate dictators—virtually the same as Stalinism.

Granted, there is a logic to one being able to benefit from one’s funds if one has earned said funds. For instance, if two workers make the same amount of money for the same amount of work and one saves that money for investment, it makes sense that that one should benefit from one’s saving while the worker who splurges is at a disadvantage. The problem with this scenario is the emphasis on “if one has earned said funds.” There are at least two problems with this factor: Inheritance and ownership of natural resources.

The issue with inheritance should be self-evident: It causes some to be born with more wealth than others. Obviously being lucky enough to be born with a certain wealth goes against meritocracy, which requires that all success be based on one’s own effort or intelligence. Since it has been established that wealth is a determinate factor for more wealth, this also affects future wealth as well. For instance, it is well established that wealth affects success at school[4], likely due to the quality of the school itself; nutrition, which affects one’s brain power; the difference in necessity to waste time working for extra funds—time that could be spent studying; and many other factors. In addition to this, the fact that some children go hungry while others live rich lives is itself an appalling injustice. After all, can one really say that a child deserves to starve because she was born poor? Can we really say that a five-year-old should “pull herself up by her bootstraps”?

Private ownership of natural resources is a much greater threat to the claim that capitalism is meritocratic, for it is a significant part of the means of production. The injustice of private ownership of natural resources is simple: Natural resources, by their nature, were not created by humans, but were there before any of us were born, and thus no individual has any greater right to it than any other. The only just ownership of natural resources is one that is equal: Democratic control. To give any individual more control over any natural resources than another would be to give that individual an undeserved privilege and to give the other an undeserved penalty.

There are two defenses against this discrepancy, but both fall apart. The first is that there are no true “natural resources,” but that humans change them with labor. The first problem with this argument is that even if one alters natural resources at least some of its value is still independent of the labor; thus, at least some of those resources still deserve to be democratically controlled. Second, this does not take into consideration the question of whether that individual had any right to alter the resource in the first place. After all, if someone were to trespass on someone else’s property and dig a hole would that make that part of the land hers? No, she would likely be arrested for changing someone’s property without permission. The same logic applies to those who alter our resources without democratic permission. Indeed, one could argue that a lot of the tampering that has gone on with our natural resources decreases their value, when environmental issues are taken into account.

The second defense of private ownership of natural resources is the adage, “Finders keepers, losers weepers,” as said by John Locke. Other than the fact that this is an utterly fabricated rule, it also inherently violates meritocracy by giving certain people advantages based on birth chance: It gives people lucky enough to be born earlier an advantage over those born later, as they are able to snatch up all the resources before the younger generations even have a chance to claim any. More importantly, this violates the aforementioned issue of inheritance, anyway.

Besides, this rule was never truly followed, anyway: Our ancestors did not gain their wealth by just finding land; they stole it through brute force. This is especially true in terms of the US, wherein all of our natural resources were stolen from the indigenous population. That in itself should invalidate practically all private ownership of natural resources in the US, as all of it is based on theft. After all, if one were to steal from someone else and hand that wealth over to her kin, that kin would still have to give it back; the same should apply here.

Both the inheritance and the natural resource problems also spell problems for most instances of private ownership of capital (non-natural means of production), as well. Since all capital is based on natural resources (in fact all resources, period, are based on natural resources), some of the wealth derived from capital belongs to the public. Granted, how much and how much this has been applied in the past is debatable, so this is a wash. What it does do, however, is offer an ethical reason for taxation of capital. Inheritance poses further problems for capital made before any of us were born, since inheritance is unmeritocratic.

So it has been established that all natural resources should be democratically controlled and that most capital should be as well. Thus, the only economic system that is compatible with meritocracy is one in which the majority of the means of production are democratically controlled. Since capitalism is defined as a society in which the majority of the means of production are privately (which, by its very nature, is undemocratic) held, it is incompatible with meritocracy.

A New Way to Evaluate Economics and the True Reason Leninism Failed

Which brings us to the conclusion: If capitalism is neither free nor meritocratic, what ethical value does it serve? The only logical answer is none: Capitalism is an inherently unjust system.

This leads to an ethical dilemma: What is a just economic system? Socialism? Surely one would not consider countries such as the former Soviet Union or North Korea just.

In reality, this is an issue of tautology rather than actual principles. It has already been established what is required for an ethical economic control: Democratic control. Without democratic control of the economy some individuals are unfairly kept away from resources they have just as much right to use; without economic democracy certain individuals have unfair advantages in terms of making more wealth than others.

The only issue in terms of “socialism” is whether “socialism” is defined as simply a government-controlled economy (including both democratic and undemocratic) or a democratically-controlled economy (which arguably may be devoid of government control if government doesn’t exist—anarcho-socialism—depending on one’s definition of “government”). Since there is no objective qualifications for what “socialism” should truly mean, this is impossible to decide—and is insignificant, anyway.

Thus, what we should focus on is not whether or not our economy is “progovernment” or “antigovernment,” but think of our economy in terms of “democratic-control” and “undemocratic-control,” with the former preferential.

Indeed, empirical evidence shows this to be a worthier concern. There are two economic patterns, both of which seem to have discrepancies: On one hand, we have statist economies like the Soviet Union and North Korea contrasted with capitalist economies such as the US, wherein the latter is clearly superior in terms of health standards, poverty, and overall public happiness—what ultimately makes a good economy. This is usually the evidence against “socialism,” the supposed proof that capitalism is the best economic system. And yet, when one compares developed countries with less government-interventionist economies such as the US with developed countries with more government-interventionist economies—“social democracies”—such as Sweden and Switzerland—one finds that there is a direct correlation between government-intervention and public well-being[5]. But while these seem inconsistent, there is in fact a consistency: Democracy. Leninist countries such as the Soviet Union were not democratic—they actually had less economic democracy than countries like the US, in which the public at least had some influence through a somewhat democratic government. Since the developed social democracies were, well, democracies[6], their government interference was actually somewhat democratic, and thus they has more economic democracy than liberal democracies such as the US and much greater economic democracies than “socialist” dictatorships. Thus, the real correlation is that greater economic democracy leads to greater public well-being.

This brings us to the overarching fallacy of economics: The US wasn’t superior to the Soviet Union because it was capitalist; it was superior because it was democratic. Meanwhile, the US falls behind the rest of the industrial world because the US is too capitalist. If the US wants to improve its faltering economy it must democratize its economy—most likely through government intervention[7]. Though there are flaws to that issue as well…

Concerns About Statism: Republicanism vs. Direct Democracy

While it is one thing to say that an economy must be democratically controlled, it is a whole different issue to decide how to do so. Earlier it was often assumed that a democratic economy came from statism from a democratic government—but this is merely an assumption. What needs to be asked is what a democratic government is.

Much like “socialism” there comes the question of what truly defines a “government.” Often it is described as an oppressive organization separate from the people. Laissez-faire libertarians often decry government-interventionist economies as a form of economic tyranny, wherein some bureaucracy arbitrarily decides who does what and who gets what. Of course, it has been established that capitalism is no better—in fact, since it is utterly undemocratic it is worse. However, this does not mean there is no value to their concern as well. The problem is that this does not show a flaw with socialism but with the form of government itself. After all, would they argue that it is good for a detached bureaucracy to create other laws arbitrarily? Thus, the concern here is not whether socialism is democratic, but whether government is democratic in itself.

And this concern has value to it, for the fact is that the US is not a true democracy, but a republic[8]. The people do not directly run it, but instead vote in temporary dictators who make decisions independent of their choices. If these government officials lie about what they plan to do as government during the election, then they have scammed the public; since there is no way to prevent government officials from doing so, this effectively makes the election system futile. Thus, Barack Obama can run under the promise to shut down Guantanamo Bay or not cut social security and then fail to do either and there is nothing the public can do in reaction, except wait for four more years so they can pick another government official who will lie to them.

The US in particular has three other factors that harm democracy: The monopolization of the electoral system by two political parties, the monopolization of the mass media by the rich, and lobbying—AKA corruption. Much like the market[9], monopolization can tarnish electoral results by harming competition. The only way democracy can function is if people have the ability to vote for someone else if a candidate supports a policy in which one does not approve. In such a competition politicians will either have to compete over who can satisfy the public the most, leading to optimal public satisfaction. However, when the electorate is monopolized by a small set of factions—such as the US, which is dominated by the Republican and Democratic parties—then the factions can indulge in “policy fixing” to ensure that the public does not get what it wants and that there is nothing they can do to change that. Thus, the fact that the majority of Americans are against cutting social security[10] is irrelevant; both Obama and Romney have shown that they support cutting social security and thus no matter how the public votes it gets cut. The majority of Americans also support ending the US invasion of Afghanistan[11]; Obama and Romney do not, and thus the US stays in Afghanistan regardless of their wishes. There is nothing the public can do to change this, for there are laws—many bipartisanly crafted by the Republicans and Democrats, coincidentally![12]—that greatly disadvantage third parties, virtually ensuring that they will never win.

Private control of the mass media also poses a threat to democracy, due to the media’s immense influence on public thought. Much like how the government uses government-controlled media to keep themselves in power, it is unreasonable not to assume corporations such as General Electric or News Corp do the same for their television and radio stations or newspapers[13]. Private control over the media—at least limited media, such as network television or radio—is usually defended based on “freedom of speech,” but this is false and, in fact, hypocritical. As mentioned, there is no such thing as economic freedom; just different people having different power over resources. The same applies to network television and radio. After all, if regulating the way corporations run their networks is a violation of freedom of speech, is not the regulation against network or radio pirates hijacking transmissions? The latter is not, not because it is any less a regulation, but because we assume that the private owners are the rightful owners; however, the claim of meritocratic ownership of television or radio is dubious: If one looks back in history one will see that both transmissions were created by the government, using public funds, and handed off to private companies for private benefits, defended by tax-funded police and regulations. Thus, private control of the media is just as statist as government control of the media.

That is not to say that a government-controlled media is necessarily better, even if the government is republican. For in a republic the government is detached from the public enough that it can twist the media to support itself, thus rigging the election in its favor, which has the risk of creating a vicious cycle of power. On the other hand, making network television and radio controlled through a more direct democratic method is certainly possible, and would at least minimize the negative effects of corporate or government control. Of course, another solution is for the public to rely less on limited media, such as television and radio, for their views, and to partake in a wide variety of sources, though how to carry this out would be difficult to discern, and would pose practicality issues.

The electoral system’s saturation of lobbyism also has an extreme negative effect on American democracy. One can see its effects in Princeton study that compared policy to public polls among the rich, middle class, and poor, which showed that policy—from both Democrats and Republicans—generally leaned in favor of the rich’s desires and against the poor’s desires, with the middle class in the middle[14]. This is, of course, incompatible with democracy: For any just society each individual must have equal power over society. Giving people greater power for greater wealth not only creates a pseudo-oligarchical political system, it is also ironically incompatible with meritocracy, for more power means a better ability to manipulate the social structure to get oneself more wealth, regardless of whether that latter gain was based on true merit or not. One need only look at the popularity of tax cuts for the rich, bank bailouts, and business subsidies (which, incidentally, take up more than four times as many government funds as welfare[15])—all forms of statism favorable to the rich—with the government to see this in action.

Since the rich have such a tight control over the US electoral system, obviously the prospect of economic democratization within the US electoral system is laughable. The fact that even popular, extremely moderate policies such as not weakening welfare—much less increasing it—are seemingly impossible only confirms this. The prospect of loosening the rich’s control of the electorate is also slim because of that very control, unless a significant portion decides that public outcry has become so great that loosening their own control would be the only way to prevent outright revolution, which could cause them to lose control completely. Whether this is possible, and whether it would be possible to build further successes from such increase in democratic power is difficult to discern. Historically, it has never seemed to work: One can look at the rise of “austerity” in Europe today to see that the “social democracy” experiment of the mid-20^th century has failed; that even when the rich gives up power they still have enough to be able to build it back up[16].

Though this describes a particular “capitalist” mode of republican vicious cycle, the same risk is present in state “socialism.” In addition to the problems of a government-controlled media, as mentioned earlier, when a government sufficiently separate from the public—even in representative “democracy”—has control of the economy that government can use that economic power to extort people into voting for them, or else risk being starved, thus creating a “socialist” mode of republican vicious cycle. Arguably, this is the case in Cuba, though whether Cuba even counts as a republic is debatable.

Admittedly, a true, direct democracy may pose practicality issues—especially in a country as large as the US. Nevertheless, there are moderate reforms that may at least increase democracy a little within the US: Stronger limits on lobbying and the aforementioned democratization of the media to limit the influence of money on the electorate; and changing the voting system to the “instant runoff” system[17] and opening the media to alternate parties would help loosen the monopolization of the electoral system by the Democratic and Republican parties. A public recall or other punishments against politicians who act against their campaign promises would also be necessary to make elections even minimally relevant.

Of course, even if the electoral system were to remain republican, it would still be possible to plan the economy on a more direct democratic level, though the possibility of the republican government snatching power of the economy back from the public would still be great—and the possibility of such a solution appearing in the current US electoral system controlled by the rich is virtually impossible.

Nonetheless, it seems that an increase in democracy for both the economy and the electoral itself would be beneficial, with direct democracy being the best solution. Whether this, or even moderate reforms toward that direction, is possible, it is impossible to discern. On the other hand, though the US government has shown itself not to be particularly consistent in its support for democracy, democracy is still a beloved aspect of American culture, and a truly democratic US should not be underwritten so easily.

Like many political terms, “political correctness” is a term so vague it is almost meaningless. There is no objective way to measure whether something is PC or not, so anyone can gleefully accuse any criticism of racism as politically correct regardless of the true level of racism criticized.

What is “political correctness”? It is most often used to denigrate what is believed to be “liberal” prissiness against certain language or depictions—most commonly those accused as being prejudice by the liberal, but not believed to be prejudice by conservatives. This is most common for when traditions are criticized. For instance, the manufactured “War on Christmas,” which Fox News apparently still trots out every December despite the obvious melodramatic goofiness of its title, is the complaint that liberal’s imaginary insistence on holiday celebration that does not prefer a certain religion mars the US’s traditional preference for Christian culture.

This seems arbitrarily specific. Why should prissiness only be bad when fighting tradition, and not when defending tradition? Certainly conservative think tanks’ (because I don’t believe average conservatives could care less about this tripe, either) obsession with the “War on Christmas” is just as triflingly whiny as the liberals’ purported insistence on cultural agnosticism. Should we not be as annoyed at them for wasting our time with such mindless pap as we are at the liberals for supposedly whining about Jews’ feelings getting hurt when Chanukah is ignored?

Evidence of conservative bitchiness in regards to culture offending their precious traditions abounds. The conservative whining against religiously incorrect works, such as that Satanic rock ‘n roll and Dungeons and Dragons—often made by Christians, anyway, such as the latter—is, of course, well established. But even nonfundie conservatives like to whine. Businesses bristle whenever their precious little laissez-faire superstitions are mocked. Hell, Fox News devoted numerous hours to divulging the secret anticapitalism within a Sesame Street special because it dared to argue that businesses that commit antisocial actions just for money is bad—a moral already well-established within our culture, from Dickens to It’s a Wonderful World.

Indeed, the desperate search for the mythical “liberal bias” in the media is akin the paranoid Marxists who find the maintenance of reactionary class distinction within every work. Already we have the infamous Conservapedia project wherein Schafly finally gets around to purging that liberal bias that has somehow snuck within the Bible, laughably breaking a major Bible law himself (in fairness, Christian fundamentalists ignoring their own rules is utterly shocking).

This discrepancy can easily be explained by examining another common thread of conservative ideology: Their hatred of “moral relativism.” Now, when they complain about “moral relativism,” they do not mean we should base our morals on objective science rather than cultural superstitions; conservative Christians have no problem denigrating atheists for being “arrogant” for making fun of their beliefs while, at the same breath, criticizing Muslims—and atheism, too, actually—in the same fashion. (Liberal Christians usually do, too; but they actually support secularization, so they are still consistent.) What conservatives really mean by “moral relativism” is that liberals dare not respect their superstitious traditions—Christianity, American superiority, and laissez-faire—unconditionally.

This is why conservatives rely on labeling as a form of argument against liberals. To call them anti-American, socialist, or communist should itself be enough of an argument; there is apparently no need to actually explain why being these things should be bad or to even have an objective definition for what these terms mean. It all means the same: Liberals are evil because they are not conservative. Q.E.D.

There is actually a logical reason why conservatives act this way, in every country in the world: In every country traditions are treated as the default good[1]. Christianity is good because it is the default in America—it is part of its culture—in the same way that Islam is good in middle eastern countries because it is the default; Laissez-faire is good because it is the default economy. Ideas that contradict these values are treated as blasphemous.

Conservatives love to use the term “common sense” to describe their beliefs. This is apt; when your beliefs are based on the default, when they are so closely embedded within the culture that one cannot be raised within the culture without being infected with them to the point of propaganda, it is easy for them to appear to be common sense. Laissez-faire appears obvious when one is raised being constantly fed pro-laissez-faire arguments and frameworks in the same way that those in the Soviet Union knew that it was obvious that their economic problems were caused by western imperialism.

Because what is usually known as “leftism”, by its nature, goes against these traditions it is much harder to defend, even if logically superior. When one is raised within the dichotomy of “free” economy vs. “command” economy—terms that even the pretend science, economics, depressingly uses—it is difficult to explain socialist ideology when it completely rejects such a dichotomy. In this context socialists look positively insane: Why would they want an economy dominated by a bureaucratic state?

Americans cannot possibly be pro-laissez-faire for the simple reason that the majority of Americans do not truly know what its alternatives are. Those who have never read socialist texts cannot be taken seriously when they argue against socialism—and yet that is precisely what most Americans do. We hear conservative pundits or politicians make the most ridiculous remarks against socialism and few even question whether one should accept the ideological definition of people obviously biased against said ideology. After all, when the pro-laissez-faire rich tell us socialism is bad, they must be telling the truth; why would they lie about something when lying would benefit them?

This dishonesty has the added defect of making some ideas seem positively crazy. This may explain why anarchism is pretty much invisible—the modern movement, as well as its historical elements. How can one explain those who oppose both government and capitalism without giving up the myth of “antigovernment” capitalism? Of course, when they are portrayed they must be done so with the same honesty as socialism: By portraying it as exactly the opposite of what it really is. Thus, anarchists are depicted as bomb-throwing totalitarians, or the term (as well as “libertarianism”) is snatched and applied to laissez-faire movements, in contradiction to history. Thus why many Americans watch Bill O’Reilly jokingly call himself an anarchist on The Daily Show and not notice the obvious overreaching irony: That conservatives actually want you to believe that they’re the ones who are antigovernment.

As long as Americans hide away from Proudhon and Dawkins because they’re afraid of having their delicate traditions offended they will never be able to understand politics accurately. They will not even have true opinions at all, willingly subjecting their freedom of opinion to the dominant ideology unconditionally. For such a thing to occur in a country that prides itself on freedom of thought is a much direr form of political correctness than non-Christians hurting Christian fundamentalists’ narcissistic need for special privileges.