About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

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


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Monday, September 15 - 10:41amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Hazlitt was an extraordinary fellow. His little book on Economics should be required reading starting in about Middle school and repeated every two years - minimum.

There is a free, online pdf copy of his "The Way to Will Power" book - available here.



Post 1

Monday, September 15 - 11:21amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Just to pay a little credit - Hazlitt borrowed his broken window scenario, as well as the seen/unseen bit, from Fred Bastiat.

Jordan



Post 2

Monday, September 15 - 4:25pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
You've definitely written an article or post using the broken window example. I do not remember you applying it to international trading and the economic freedom of people in other countries.

Very good article, and good timing (relevant to recent debates on the use of US military force). Thanks.



Post 3

Monday, September 15 - 5:34pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Jordan,

Bastiat is one of my favorites (especially on property).

Here are a couple of quotes of his: "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." (Frédéric Bastiat, The Law)

And, "Property does not exist because there are laws, but laws exist because there is property."

My favorite: "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." Frederic Bastiat (The State, 1848)
-----------

Hazlitt gave full credit to Bastiat and you can see how highly he thought of him - in the preface to Economics in One lesson, says, "My greatest debt, with respect to the kind of expository framework on which the present argument is hung, is to Frederic Bastiat's essay Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas, no nearly a century old, The present work may, in fact, be regarded as a modernization, extension and generalization found in Bastiat's pamphlet."


And the first sentence in the chapter on the Broken Window, says, "Let us begin with the simplist illustration possible: let us, emulating Bastiat, chose a broken pane of glass.




Post 4

Monday, September 15 - 8:51pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
My favorite: "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." Frederic Bastiat (The State, 1848)

Interesting - always thought Mencken said that...



Post 5

Monday, September 15 - 9:20pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Robert,

It certainly scans more like Mencken then Bastiat, but here it is online, and it is a fun read.
---------

Here are some quotes from Mencken on government:

Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods.

The worst government is the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression.

All government, in its essence, is organized exploitation, and in virtually all of its existing forms it is the implacable enemy of every industrious and well-disposed man.

The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic.

The ideal government of reflective men, from Aristotle onward, is one which lets the individual alone.

Democracy, too, is a religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses.

Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.

As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.


This one has nothing to do with government (well, we hope) but it is a favorite of mine: Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.

All government, of course, is against liberty.

Government is actually the worst failure of civilized man. There has never been a really good one, and even those that are most tolerable are arbitrary, cruel, grasping and unintelligent.

I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time.

The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office.


It [the State] has taken on a vast mass of new duties and responsibilities; it has spread out its powers until they penetrate to every act of the citizen, however secret; it has begun to throw around its operations the high dignity and impeccability of a State religion; its agents become a separate and superior caste, with authority to bind and loose, and their thumbs in every pot. But it still remains, as it was in the beginning, the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious and decent men.

I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even when the former is dangerous and the latter safe. I believe that the finest qualities of man can flourish only in free air -- that progress made under the shadow of the policeman's club is false progress, and of no permanent value. I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave.

Whenever 'A' attempts by law to impose his moral standards upon 'B', 'A' is most likely a scoundrel.

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it.

It is the theory of all modern civilized governments that they protect and foster the liberty of the citizen; it is the practice of all of them to limit its exercise, and sometimes very narrowly.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

No one ever heard of the truth being enforced by law. Whenever the secular arm is called in to sustain an idea, whether new or old, it is always a bad idea, and not infrequently it is downright idiotic.

When a new source of taxation is found it never means, in practice, that an old source is abandoned. It merely means that the politicians have two ways of milking the taxpayer where they had only one before.

The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.

People constantly speak of 'the government' doing this or that, as they might speak of God doing it. But the government is really nothing but a group of men, and usually they are very inferior men.

The whole drift of our law is toward the absolute prohibition of all ideas that diverge in the slightest form from the accepted platitudes, and behind that drift of law there is a far more potent force of growing custom, and under that custom there is a natural philosophy which erects conformity into the noblest of virtues and the free functioning of personality into a capital crime against society.

The only kind of freedom that the mob can imagine is freedom to annoy and oppress its betters, and that is precisely the kind that we mainly have.

The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's good-bye to the Bill of Rights.

I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty enough to want to force it upon anyone.

I believe there is a limit beyond which free speech cannot go, but it's a limit that's very seldom mentioned. It's the point where free speech begins to collide with the right to privacy. I don't think there are any other conditions to free speech. I've got a right to say and believe anything I please, but I haven't got a right to press it on anybody else. .... Nobody's got a right to be a nuisance to his neighbors.

The penalty for laughing in a courtroom is six months in jail; if it were not for this penalty, the jury would never hear the evidence.

Unquestionably, there is progress. The average American now pays out twice as much in taxes as he formerly got in wages.

The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to prevailing superstition or taboo.

That erroneous assumption is to the effect that the aim of public education is to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence, and so make them fit to discharge the duties of citizenship in an enlightened and independent manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all, it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States, whatever the pretensions of politicians, pedagogues and other such mountebanks, and that is its aim everywhere else.




Post 6

Tuesday, September 16 - 11:11pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
When a country's government decides it wants to give communism a shot...there are plenty of unseen victims.  Everyone who could have traded with those people are now cut off.  Everyone who would have benefited from cooperation with those people would be hurt. 

Are the above examples genuine violations of the rights of the unseen victim?  Imagine the consequences if they are.  No longer could we look at the violations of rights in other countries with apathy.  We'd realize that although the targets are the citizens of other countries, nonetheless we are victims as well.  Whenever one man's life or wealth is taken, it should be seen as an indirect attack on our own.

Even if you conclude that these are not actual violations of rights for the unseen victim, you should be aware that an attack on anyone's rights has negative consequences to your own life.  There is a harmony of interests, and our lives are intertwined with others.  We may not be the immediate victim, but our lives will be negatively impacted by the coercion of others.
Ron Paul's new book, Revolution, persuasively promotes foreign policy non-interventionism. So did the Founding Fathers and Ayn Rand. Joe Rowland's quote above promotes the opposite. I think I agree with Joe.

Who knows how many basically good, innocent, and quite talented people live in China, Russia, Arabia, and elsewhere who could cure cancer, AIDS, or even mortality? But their dictatorial leaders and socio-economic systems virtually preclude them from ever effectuating this. And because the West fails to intervene overseas -- even lightly, such as via assassinating their often defenseless despots -- these self-same slaves and pawns frequently join the dictator's military and become a terrible threat to all of us. Unfortunately, this is a bit of justice I think. It's the price we pay for our philosophical incompetence.   




Post 7

Sunday, September 21 - 5:13pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Thank Dean and Kyrel.  Glad you appreciated the content of the article.



Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.