Situation:

Dr. Pourhritch was perhaps the greatness social engineer to have ever lived, of this there can be no doubt. Today, all developed countries subscribe to his theories with great success. Sure, a few nay-sayers come along periodically to say that the whole process is unfair, but what does that matter if it gets results?

Briefly stated, Dr. Pourhritch’s idea was this: a certain group of individuals should be given almost no financial means to help better themselves. This will cause them to be un(der)educated and thus left with little hope to get better jobs or spend their little amount of money responsibly. There should also be another group who are given a vast amount of money and wealth. They should have so much money that they can throw it around however they would like. Since they have money for education they will know how to spend their money well and in turn will get more money for doing so.

These two groups, in honor of Dr. Pourhritch, have become known as the “Pourh” and the “Ritch,” respectively.

Now according to Dr. Pourhritch, there should be no reason as to why some are to be Pourh and others to be Ritch. There should obviously be more Pourh than Ritch and also people whose parents were Pourh are more likely to be Pourh and those who are Ritch remain Ritch. This is to establish the “Veshesh Cycle”* where people have no choice but to play the cards they were given.

And though it was once known as Pourhritchianism I think his theory now goes by the catchier name: capitalism.

*Rashithu Veshesh was another great man who saw the repetition of the world as a self-referential system which we periodical break out of to see. Thus, according to him, we mark the days and the months and the years, while all the while things just “stay the same.”

Questions:

These things have really gone off the deep end, haven’t they? More to the point, is this an adequate description of an aspect of capitalism? Is the divergence of rich and poor so easily accounted for by chance elements? Couldn’t the case be made that many rich people “deserve” to be rich and many poor people “deserve” to be poor? But what was that little bit about education? Should the fact that poor people are uneducated be taken into account at all? Why or why not? Is there a fairness to the rich and poor dichotomy? Is that even a relevant concern? If Pourhritch’s ideas aren’t the same as capitalism, what’s the difference? How could you tell if one were implemented over the other? What about Marx’s theory, is it better than Pourhritch’s? Why or why not? Does capitalism work? Is there a more just, fair, effective way to run a society? Does capitalism actually free people or does it confine them ever more to their descriptors, rich and poor? Is there any truth to the sentiment that “things just stay the same”? Is a self-reinforcing system better than one which stands on independent merit? If the rich tend to remain rich and the poor remain poor, can there be any progress? If there can, who is the progress for?

© Barry Belmont for UNR Students for Liberty, 2009.
Permalink | No comment

If I wish to trade you my pen for your tie, we are part of a market. Not the capital M Market, but a market all the same. I trade you my pen because I value your tie as greater than my pen, and you value my pen as greater than your tie and are willing to part with it. Now say instead I pay you five dollars for your tie and you pay me three dollars for my pen…now they do not have the same value, but they have values that we both agree to and are willing to trade for. In this case, I trade you five pieces of paper for your tie and you give me three pieces of paper for my pen.

Now suppose somebody else does not wish for this transaction to occur. Do they have a right to prevent it? No. Even if this person uses the argument that I will regret my trade later, it will hurt me, I will be sad, it is not in my best interest, they have no right to actually prevent this trade. This person’s critiques may be valid: I may in fact regret it later (maybe your tie is lame and my pen is awesome). This, however, is no reason to prevent two consenting adults from voluntarily trading. Thus, the person unaffected by our market is the one who is not part of the trade. They can be said to be outside of the market.

Since a person unaffected by a voluntary trade has no right to prevent this voluntary trade, whence comes this power to prevent it?

As a concrete example, say you have never been to a bowling alley. You’ve never bowled, but hey, maybe you think you wouldn’t like it anyway and you decide never to go to one. Perfectly fine. It is your right to go to a bowling alley and conversely it is also your right not to go to a bowling alley. The problem arises when you say that other people are not allowed to go to bowling alleys. Even if bowling alleys are immoral, disgusting, wrong, and the people who go to them are awful scum of the earth (which I, personally, do not believe), you have no right to prevent people from going to bowling alleys, by means of force. If you want to make a website that tells of the evils of bowling alleys or talk to the owners about what you feel is wrong with this cesspool they’re running (and they are willing to listen), then that too is perfectly fine. So long as you do not agress against the rights of others, then you are free to do as you wish.

Or at least that’s the way it should be.

It should be that way because if bowling alleys were bad and people did not like them, people would not go to them, they would lose money, go out of business, and no longer be around to bug anyone (how many encyclopedia salesmen have you seen recently?). The market course corrects to punish those enterprises that consumers do not like and rewards those that consumers do like. You don’t need laws to tell people what to do: you need people and freedom.

If people do not like trans fats then it would be in the interest of restaurants to not serve trans fats. Given the same tasting food, for the same price, but one is more healthy, people would be more inclined to buy the healthy product. Hence, the companies that sell the healthy stuff will gain more market share, while those that sell crap (at the same price) are likely to go under. You do not need the State for this: you need people and a free market.

And this exactly what we have seen. Many restaurants were well on their way to phasing out trans fats. And that’s great, but…

It doesn’t matter if restaurants were getting rid of them by themselves…
It doesn’t matter if the state had nothing but the best of intentions…
It doesn’t matter if trans fats are dangerous…
It doesn’t matter even matter if the majority, say even a vast majority of citizens were in favor of this law…

THIS LAW IS WRONG.

It would be too easy to blame California’s government or its voting citizens or all of its citizens… Yes, they should be ashamed of themselves. But so should we. We as thinking, loving, caring people; as people capable of speaking out; we simply as people, should be ashamed of what has been carried out in our name, in our health, and in our face. Though there may be nothing we can do about this law now (indeed, there is nothing we can do), we must not give in to evil, but strive ever more boldly against it. A perfect society may never come about, will never come about, but as Sisyphus struggled more defiantly against the gods in pushing his boulder to the peak of the mountain, we too must–in the face of those who would break us through petty vanity or oblivious banality–try to push our boulder, our society to its height.

And it all begins with one little push.

© Barry Belmont for UNR Students for Liberty, 2008.
Permalink | No comment