PDA

View Full Version : Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature---Murray Rothbard



Mister D
09-20-2012, 10:05 AM
Sadly, classical liberalism itself is ultimately responsible for the modern ideal of equality but this is an interesting essay by Murray Rothbard. It's amazing how libertarianism has been transformed in such a short time. Here is Rothbard arguing that inequality is both natural and genetic.

Snip

The egalitarian revolt against biological reality, as significant as it is, is only a subset of a deeper revolt: against the ontological structure of reality itself, against the "very organization of nature"; against the universe as such. At the heart of the egalitarian left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality; that all the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will – in short, that reality can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings. Surely this sort of infantile thinking is at the heart of Herbert Marcuse's passionate call for the comprehensive negation of the existing structure of reality and for its transformation into what he divines to be its true potential.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard31.html

Chris
09-20-2012, 10:08 AM
This was already posted here: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/5598-Critique-of-liberal-ideology?p=135466&viewfull=1#post135466

Mister D
09-20-2012, 10:10 AM
This was already posted here: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/5598-Critique-of-liberal-ideology?p=135466&viewfull=1#post135466

So? You've ruined that thread and no one is reading it. This Rothbard piece is an intersting one so I started a separate thread.

MMC
09-20-2012, 10:44 AM
The unquestioned ethical status of "equality" may be seen in the common practice of economists. Economists are often caught in a value-judgment bind – eager to make political pronouncements. How can they do so while remaining "scientific" and value-free? In the area of egalitarianism, they have been able to make a flat value judgment on behalf of equality with remarkable impunity. Sometimes this judgment has been frankly personal; at other times, the economist has pretended to be the surrogate of "society" in the course of making its value judgment. The result, however, is the same. Consider, for example, the late Henry C. Simons. After properly criticizing various "scientific" arguments for progressive taxation, he came out flatly for progression as follows:

The case for drastic progression in taxation must be rested on the case against inequality – on the ethical or aesthetic judgment that the prevailing distribution of wealth and income reveals a degree (and/or kind) of inequality which is distinctly evil or unlovely. 2 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#_ftn2)
Another typical tactic may be culled from a standard text on public finance. According to Professor John F. Due, "[t]he strongest argument for progression is the fact that the consensus of opinion in society today regards progression as necessary for equity. This is, in turn, based on the principle that the pattern of income distribution, before taxes, involves excessive inequality." The latter "can be condemned on the basis of inherent unfairness in terms of the standards accepted by society.".....snip~

I agree with this.....whats your thoughts on it D?

Carygrant
09-20-2012, 11:06 AM
Who is interested in equality?
It's not even practised in the Hermit Kingdom .
But talk about Equality of Opportunity and Extremist Republicans go deaf and mute .

MMC
09-20-2012, 11:09 AM
Hmmm, yet Mr Grant.....I would note the emphasis on the Economists. Which I would think those are valid points since economists go political moreso today than ever. Wouldn't you agree to that?

Mister D
09-20-2012, 11:09 AM
Who is interested in equality?
It's not even practised in the Hermit Kingdom .
But talk about Equality of Opportunity and Extremist Republicans go deaf and mute .

Who is interested in it? The inhabitants of both our nations have sacralized the very notion.

Mister D
09-20-2012, 11:11 AM
The unquestioned ethical status of "equality" may be seen in the common practice of economists. Economists are often caught in a value-judgment bind – eager to make political pronouncements. How can they do so while remaining "scientific" and value-free? In the area of egalitarianism, they have been able to make a flat value judgment on behalf of equality with remarkable impunity. Sometimes this judgment has been frankly personal; at other times, the economist has pretended to be the surrogate of "society" in the course of making its value judgment. The result, however, is the same. Consider, for example, the late Henry C. Simons. After properly criticizing various "scientific" arguments for progressive taxation, he came out flatly for progression as follows:
The case for drastic progression in taxation must be rested on the case against inequality – on the ethical or aesthetic judgment that the prevailing distribution of wealth and income reveals a degree (and/or kind) of inequality which is distinctly evil or unlovely. 2 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#_ftn2)

Another typical tactic may be culled from a standard text on public finance. According to Professor John F. Due, "[t]he strongest argument for progression is the fact that the consensus of opinion in society today regards progression as necessary for equity. This is, in turn, based on the principle that the pattern of income distribution, before taxes, involves excessive inequality." The latter "can be condemned on the basis of inherent unfairness in terms of the standards accepted by society.".....snip~

I agree with this.....whats your thoughts on it D?

I think these controversies will never go away as long as equality is one of the bedrock values of our society.

MMC
09-20-2012, 11:24 AM
I think these controversies will never go away as long as equality is one of the bedrock values of our society.

Isnt it funny how the poor and street people understand that concept? Kinda goes back to a convo we had with the Elites. Wouldnt these economists now be considered such? Again the means does not matter as long as their goal is achieved.....Right?

Carygrant
09-20-2012, 11:39 AM
Who is interested in it? The inhabitants of both our nations have sacralized the very notion.


I have never heard anyone here talk of equality .
It's a lunatic objective . It reminds me of Communism and Christianity -- their respective failures being testimony to their usefulness in the 21 st century .
I repeat , Modern Conservatism in Team GB agrees with both other parties that Equality of Opportunity is a key priority .

Mister D
09-20-2012, 11:42 AM
I have never heard anyone here talk of equality .
It's a lunatic objective . It reminds me of Communism and Christianity -- their respective failures being testimony to their usefulness in the 21 st century .
I repeat , Modern Conservatism in Team GB agrees with both other parties that Equality of Opportunity is a key priority .

You have never heard anyone "talk of equality" (this "lunatic objective") but "modern Conservatism in Team GB agrees with both other parties that Equality of Opportunity is a key priority".

Cary, are you senile?

Carygrant
09-20-2012, 11:48 AM
Hmmm, yet Mr Grant.....I would note the emphasis on the Economists. Which I would think those are valid points since economists go political moreso today than ever. Wouldn't you agree to that?


I'm genuinely a little lost as there are no public Economists here --- there are people who write in the Media but they are opinion formers linked to political agendas , and TV wheels out a series of people , usually introduced as our Economics Specialist , or something similar . That is , whoever is on duty to take up the assignment .
There is no debate on the notion and I always assumed that it was self evidently a contradiction .
Naturally , there may be behind the scenes discussion but nothing that I recall that has been made public .
Perhaps I should suggest that Equality of Opportunity includes the notion of equality of treatment wherever possible here , but that is usually a very difficult area to isolate and quantify .

Carygrant
09-20-2012, 11:55 AM
You have never heard anyone "talk of equality" (this "lunatic objective") but "modern Conservatism in Team GB agrees with both other parties that Equality of Opportunity is a key priority".

Cary, are you senile?


Back to your baby tricks again .
Just learn to talk civilly and you might get me prepared to give you my time .
If you don't want to know what a very informed person reports about his own country , then shut up and clear off .
If you do not understand the difference between Equality and Equality of Opportunity , then say so . But don't go into schoolboy mode of name calling . You know that separately I think you are a clown but I am prepared to discuss matters with people who know how to behave .

Mister D
09-20-2012, 12:01 PM
Back to your baby tricks again .
Just learn to talk civilly and you might get me prepared to give you my time .
If you don't want to know what a very informed person reports about his own country , then shut up and clear off .
If you do not understand the difference between Equality and Equality of Opportunity , then say so . But don't go into schoolboy mode of name calling . You know that separately I think you are a clown but I am prepared to discuss matters with people who know how to behave .

Cary, there is no general concept of "Equality". Our societies struggled and continue to struggle over what precisely it means to be equal. There is no difference between "Equality" and "Equality of Opportunity" because while both are vague the former is meaningless. It is contingent upon the meaning a society gives it.

Carygrant
09-20-2012, 01:24 PM
Cary, there is no general concept of "Equality". Our societies struggled and continue to struggle over what precisely it means to be equal. There is no difference between "Equality" and "Equality of Opportunity" because while both are vague the former is meaningless. It is contingent upon the meaning a society gives it.


The Chinese and Putin's Federation would not agree , though neither seem to use their power in support of the claimed philosophy .
However difficult it is to work to any aspirational concept , failure to achieve does not negate it as a goal or worthwhile aspiration . Thus Equality in defined areas is a real idea and worthy of attention in the same ways that Happiness and Fulfilment are separately valuable and real .
To avoid the difficulties of producing an equal society , we ( the developed world) have moved to recognition of Equality of Opportunity as a key objective based on fairness and justice AND as a pre-requisite for then examining how Equality can then be used a driver but remain compatible with growth and development .And keeping worker motivation high .
So far the pursuit of equality has not progressed much more than , " equal pay for equal work" and " no gender pay differences for equal work " etc etc . But such practises are still comparatively new and far from universally applied , even in the US and UK .
But this type of thinking is in its infancy and there will be no one huge move from current to a new system . Rather , progress will be in steps , perhaps over many generations .
My central point is that without recognising this real and key difference between Equality and Equality of Opportunity , you run the risk of forgetting the former because it rests on tricky and shifting ground and its application is complex and far from perfect .
But not sufficiently difficult for us to brush the matter under the carpet , imo .

Mister D
09-20-2012, 01:41 PM
We can assign "Equality" a meaning when we say "Equality of opportunity" but that has proved to be unsatisfying precisely because it's an impossibility. How can opportunities ever be distributed equally? The son of rich man will have more opportunities than the son of the poor man simply by virtue of his life circumstances. I could give more examples but I'm sure you get the point. IMO, our societies will continue to struggle with this as they have for centuries. Equality has a logic of its own and that logic is relentless precisely because equality was only ever vaguely defined and, in the end, was never really possible. It was an unfortunate choice of terms and one that has had lasting consequences.

As for the worthiness of equality as an ideal, I would say that this aspiration, as you call it, has caused more harm to real human beings and more mayhem than perhaps anything else in the last 200 years. How many have been murdered in its name? Hoe many cultures extinguished? How many societies destroyed? I disagree that this "type of thinking" is in its infancy. Indeed, it has a blood soaked past.