Wow, thats quite the compliment. Thank you!

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
Well said! Your words have a simple elegance which has forever eluded me.

In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
There are quite a few digressions in this thread, but I don't think anyone has actually addressed the content of the video. The speaker is saying that groups are merely abstractions; that you shouldn't forsake the trees for the forest.

We all want to live in a happy, peaceful society - collectivist or individualist. I don't think theres any denying that. What the speaker is trying to illustrate with his tree/forest metaphor is that the soul of these two ideologies is actually quite different - despite the fact they share the same goals.

Expanding on the tree/forest metaphor, one might define a "good" forest as one with a lot of healthy, thriving trees. If, in walking through a forest, you came across an area where the soil was nutritionally deficient and the growth of all the trees in the area stunted, you might view this forest as somehow imperfect. To correct this flaw, you could cut down the largest tree you can find, grind it up into fertilizer, and spread it around on the soil to help the stunted trees thrive.

What actually happens though, when you cut down a tree to grow a forest, as it were, is you lose sight of whats actually important. Yes, by some definition you are fulfilling "the greatest good for the greatest number" but if you have to lose your soul to achieve some measure of "good", what have you really accomplished? You thought you were saving the forest, but the forest doesn't exist. The forest is only how your mind perceives a group of trees; what existed was a group of trees sharing the same habitat. All you did was kill one tree, and use it to fertilize another.

So my question has to be: What glory is there in forging a perfect society, if it has no soul?

thank you, kind sir!

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
*quality

be interested to hear your thoughts on this data.

http://science.videosift.com/talk/Real-Science-Economics-by-the-Numbers

i care not for the method, only for the results. i don't have anymore devotion to the mises school than i do to chocolate ice cream. i support their theory, like any other in science, because, from what i have seen, it best fits the empirical data, and consistently makes the best predictions.

the theory of gravity as postulated by newton was wrong . as of 2009, the human race still does not understand why or how gravity works.


In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
Well I would say you are mistaken then, economics is a social science not science like physics.

The theory of gravity is absolute because it produces consistent results in accordance to the theory, in keeping with newtons laws of gravity. This is not the same case in economic theory, where new theories are constantly presented, refuted and reassembled because one theory does not always produce consistent predictable results when applied to different economies.

Apply BWF so widely makes just as much sense as saying cutting taxes right now will create stimulus in consumer spending. That is completely out of touch with current economic situation.

Look you are an acolyte of the Mises Insitute so you will agree with pretty much anything they say.

In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:

theories are judged not only by their absolute truthiness, but in their ability to make accurate predictions. gravity, for example, is not understood by a single person on this planet yet we gladly utilize newton's laws to make reasonable predictions. even if a theory is seen as accurate, it is often too unwieldy to use for macro examples (see quantum mechanics).

given that, i think it is reasonable to apply the BWF to large-scale action like the governmental stimulus -- even if its not "fully" correct, it makes very accurate predictions

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:

theories are judged not only by their absolute truthiness, but in their ability to make accurate predictions. gravity, for example, is not understood by a single person on this planet yet we gladly utilize newton's laws to make reasonable predictions. even if a theory is seen as accurate, it is often too unwieldy to use for macro examples (see quantum mechanics).

given that, i think it is reasonable to apply the BWF to large-scale action like the governmental stimulus -- even if its not "fully" correct, it makes very accurate predictions

is it possible that your professor misunderstood it? i don't know who he was or his credentials, but lew rockwell is the president of the ludwig von mises institute--one of the most frequently cited economic sources in the world. have you read the original work, ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas? or any of bastiat's contemporaries? has your professor read smith, hazlitt, or mises?

i was not taught in university, but i have explored it for myself, and what rockwell presents in that video is, to me, very much in line with both the intent of the original author, and his subsequent contemporaries.

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
Am sorry but this is stupid, I just can't believe someone would misread the broken window theory in such a way.

The broken window theory was taught to me as a function of multipliers across the economy not as a net GDP gain scenario. i.e. as an incentive to drive economic activity across a model small scale economy to make students understand the multiplier effect.

Furthermore the government as a window breaker is a fallacy to claim as a statement. The government stimulus to the economy is to loosen money in the economy, so instead of saving there is expenditure, because the government is expending money, the workers will have added income, so they will spend it and on and on through the application of multiplier effect.

This is why I hate modern economics as a whole, because seemingly educated people like this come out and postulate a economy theory in a model economy to try and explain a far more complex system. Ridicule it and then put forth their own model economic theory and claim that it will cure all social ills, such as constant tax cuts.

i just came up with it

In reply to this comment by wazant:
Interesting point! Thanks. Is that your own formulation, or can you cite it for me?

In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
anonymity doesn't change who you are, it reveals it.

its on a winch, so it can be pulled in during big storms.

the 1kW residential version is also only $2,000.

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
Wow, smart. The only downfall would be storm systems ripping it from the sky like some 10 million dollar kite. Still, pretty reasonable little thing.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
"It does get at your point pretty well, but its not just what right do you have to kill another human, but who gave you the right to live?"

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. The "right to life" is derived from the law of identity: A is A. In other words, a living being is a living being. A living being has but one way to exist as a living being: it must sustain itself through self-generated action. And the only way to achieve this in a social context is to have the right to sustain ones own life through self-generated action, i.e. to have "the right to life".

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
1) I get my morality from my family, my friends, my culture and my experiences. It was obvious in your last reply that you want me to agree to some overarching, innate principles that guide all humanity to value life and freedom, but, sorry, not gonna happen.

This is the problem of infinite regression. You are not answering the question, you are merely creating a new entity to cover your bases. Where does your family, friends, or culture get their morals from?

I'm not looking for "innate principles" I already provided you a firm, clear, answer for the basis of my philosophy: "the right to life" which I explicitly defined. It is not innate, it was developed with reason and logic. Why is it not possible for you to provide me with the same? If collectivism and individualism are polar opposites why is it that my philosophy provides a clear moral guide, whereas yours provides none?

Your philosophy advocates slavery, murder, and when a majority decision cannot be reached, results in absolute anarchy. What kind of philosophy is that to build a society upon?

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:

As an individual I think slavery is wrong. I can not see myself agreeing with a community decision to designate one class of people in a community as the servants to another class. Why? Because I not only have empathy for other individuals but I recognize that individuals should be free to work primarily in their own self interest.

You are evading the root of the question though.
1. Why do you have empathy for other individuals, and why do you recognize that individuals should be free to work primarily in their own self interest? On what principle do you derive your empathy and recognition?

If a community can't form a consensus on a problem, well, typically that community simply doesn't solve that problem. In your example this could result in the individuals dissolving their community and not relying on one another when it comes to food, or one could conceivably enslave the other against his will. Its up to them how it goes down, not up to some law of fate.

If the only rules are the rules created by the community--and the community can't come to an agreement, what rules are there? If, as in my example, there are two people (mike and john) on an island and mike wants to kill john, but john doesn't want to be killed. As a community it appears there is a bit of a stalemate here.
Now suppose: Mike kills John.
2. Is this wrong? If so, why?
3. If you say it is wrong, then you condemn mike's choice to kill john. If you say it is not wrong, then you condemn john's choice to not be killed. How can you explain this inconsistency?

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:

That example would be a terribly unfair community, but some communities are terribly unfair! The United States had slavery for a hundred years, where half the population in some places literally made food and grew crops, etc. for the other half. I'm not condoning this; I'm describing to you how communities work, not how they should work in some ultimately fair society.

1. By what process do you determine what is "fair"?

You seem to think that there are, naturally, sacred laws that need to be followed, either ones that apply to individuals or communities. I'm saying this unfortunately isn't the case.

2. Do you think slavery is wrong, and if so, why?

So, essentially we're arguing now about what we think is a successful way to run a community; is it that individuals have a high degree of choice, or is it that the community has a high degree of choice.

3. How do you define whether a community is successful?
4. Does a master and a slave form a community?
5. When the community is comprised of only two people, say on an island, and each demand that the other produce food for them, who is to produce food? Is this resolved by adding a third person?

But I also recognize where the other side can lead; more individualism can lead to weaker community structure

6. What does "weaker community structure" mean, and how do you determine it?

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
1) The community determines the selection/initiation/ceremony process, of course. That was an easy one!

2) There is no fundamental community guaranteed right; its all up to the group. Why must there be one? ... we're talking about humans here; humans do some crazy shit.

So let me try to apply your system. We are in a town, population 100. Everyone is hungry, so they decide to have a meeting to determine how they should get food. One of the citizens suggests that they should have one person dedicated to providing food for everyone else. One guy in town is a bit of an outcast, and when they take a vote it comes out 99-1. 99 votes for the outcast to make the food, and 1 vote against. The outcast spends the rest of his life in slavery making food for the rest of the town.

This is what your system results in, the "right to enslave" !

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:

YES! I very much do disagree! If you took 9.9million from this dude with 10 million dollars he's still got 100,000 bucks! If you take 9,900 from a dude with 10,000 bucks, that guy is going to have a much, much harder time then that dude who lost a lot more but had a lot more to lose. You see what I'm saying? Again this is oversimplifying the situation to such a degree that its not worth arguing about, but I'm not comfortable leaving my position unclear on this point.

What person is going to be okay with losing 9.9 million dollars or 99% of their wealth? Why would anyone risk losing 99% of their total wealth when they can protect it by paying a mere 7% on their annual income? My guess is that everyone would donate to police and national defense because no one wants to lose 99% of their money. My point was that even if all the poor people didn't contribute the rich people would pay for it in its entirety because given the choice between 7% of their income or 100% of their wealth, any economically minded person is going to choose the former!

One however, can take it to the extreme to show that your logic breaks down. Imagine an example where one man has $1 trillion and another has $1 dollar. Who benefits most from a police/national defense system? if you take away 99% from each man, does your argument still work? How can changing the dollar amounts possibly change the principle? All that matters is those who have more, have more to lose, and thus benefit most from protection of what they have.

What you're really saying is that the millionaire is a better target, thus he would want to have better defense of his assets. But why couldn't he do this privately? Buy some guns, some dogs, some fences, some security guards. And what neighborhoods are the most crime-ridden? I'll give you a hint, ... no I'll just tell you answer; its poor neighborhoods. So maybe now you have a grasp as to why I thought this was the most outrageous of your claims.

How are the fences and security guards going to help him when China invades, or when 1000 poor people form a mob and storm his house? How much would you have to pay a security guard, in a system of anarchy, to guard $10 million? How will he live a normal life when everyone knows who he is and how much money he has? How can he walk down the street? Is he to remain in his fortress, if so what kind of life is that? This is the point I was making--everyone benefits from a police system and national defense, but the rich people benefit the most precisely because they have the most to fear, and the most to lose.

Maybe what you're referring to are Non-Governmental Organization, and not Non-Profit Organizations? Non-profits are not able to compete with private businesses if their funding/property/assets/operations are taxed. There would be absolutely no point to have a non-profit company if there was no tax incentive to do so. If there were no taxes on any businesses then nonprofits would not exist as they do today... their entire structure is based around being tax exempt. So,... um... yeah! Sorry to break the news to you!

Thats just not true. The majority of todays non-profits were formed in the 19th century (red cross, salvation army, art museums, etc.) when there was no income tax, and taxes were a very small portion of peoples income, and there was little to no regulation in the economy. If you think that people only donate blood, or only appreciate art, or only listen to operas, or only donate clothes, food, or help the homeless because of tax incentives, then you really have a sad view of humanity.

A person strictly interested in their individual choices would by necessity disregard the choices of everyone else! There are not individual rights in strict individualism, because there is no community to guarantee these rights. Its every man for himself.

Thats not what "the right to life" is about. Did you read my definition on my bio? It clearly says this: "As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights." It specifically says you cannot violate the rights of others.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:

That is complete nonsense. Its such a nonsensical statement that the opposite argument is much more compelling to my ear (though still a wild oversimplification), that poor people who don't have the ability to replace stolen goods, repair damages, file lawsuits or pay for insurance, would be more concerned with funding collective security, as they could be wiped out completely by a single incident.

I am saying that someone with $10 million has more to lose than someone with $10,000. You disagree? If china invades tomorrow and loots the entire country, who loses more? If there are no police who is more likely to be kidnapped for ransom--the millionaire or the pauper? With no legal system, whose house will be the first to be burglarized, the mansion on the hill or the one bedroom apartment in the city?

Do you know why people form nonprofits? Because you don't pay taxes on things related to the organization, but in-turn all the money you generate can only be spent to benefit the nonprofit. The whole point of your column here was you want to make taxes voluntary... so, uh, yeah, I think what you mean instead of 'nonprofit' is 'board', or 'committee'... and those things we already have.

If your argument is true, that people only give to charity for tax breaks, or only form charity organizations for tax shelter, we are a sorry lot indeed, and the community most definitely should not be trusted.

Anyhow, I'm not going to go through and bust your balls on everything that makes no sense in this... strict individualists are by definition anarchists while strict collectivists are communists...

I would argue that anyone who is an anarchist is not an individualist, as there can be no law in anarchy, and without law, there are no individual rights.

I respect that you're trying to find your position towards the individualist side of the spectrum, but as a general statement I think you're system is all over the place, with individuals being selfish but not that selfish and on and on...

That is how the "invisible hand" works. Even though people are acting in their own selfish interest, they end up benefiting the community at large. It is one of the most important principles of the market. Just look at the quote in my bio:
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chuses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow citizens."
—Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

The butcher ends up providing dinner for thousands of people--do you think he does that out of the goodness of his heart? No, he does it for the selfish reason that he gets paid. Same thing with the doctor. Do you think the doctor spends 8 years in medical school and 60 hours a week because he wants everyone to be healthy? No, he does it because he gets paid well. Part of him likely enjoys helping others, but that too is a selfish interest.