Do we all work for Goldman Sachs?
Here's a link to a conspiracy-type article about Goldman Sachs. Of course, I can't vouch for its accuracy, but in general I consider beyond dispute that there are corrupt "businessmen" pulling giant levers in Washington, defrauding the rest of us of enormous sums of the wealth we create, in just the kind of "crony capitalism" that statists use as an excuse for more government controls in the economy.
It is important to remember that some state oppression is direct, both politically and philosophically, i.e., taxes and regulations restrict your freedom and are meant to restrict your freedom; -- but a great deal of injustice is the indirect consequence of the non-capitalistic government's parceling out of favors to the "well-connected", i.e., to those who are willing and able to buy men of political power.
Atlas Shrugged gives timeless characterizations of both manifestations of statism.
Defenders of individual rights must communicate clearly the polar-opposite difference between those corrupt "businessmen" of today who are able to "do whatever they want" by trafficking in government favors -- versus the individuals in a system of true capitalism, who would be free to make any business arrangements, but would be unable to purchase economic favors from the government, since a capitalistic government would have none to sell.
It is important to remember that some state oppression is direct, both politically and philosophically, i.e., taxes and regulations restrict your freedom and are meant to restrict your freedom; -- but a great deal of injustice is the indirect consequence of the non-capitalistic government's parceling out of favors to the "well-connected", i.e., to those who are willing and able to buy men of political power.
Atlas Shrugged gives timeless characterizations of both manifestations of statism.
Defenders of individual rights must communicate clearly the polar-opposite difference between those corrupt "businessmen" of today who are able to "do whatever they want" by trafficking in government favors -- versus the individuals in a system of true capitalism, who would be free to make any business arrangements, but would be unable to purchase economic favors from the government, since a capitalistic government would have none to sell.
Labels: politics
posted by Brad Williams @ 10:56 PM
9 Comments:
At 4:12 AM ,
Burgess Laughlin said...
I haven't read the whole article. I have no doubt that "for-profit" organizations, like some non-profit organizations, are manipulating the government at all levels in order to manipulate society and the economy for their benefit at the coercive expensive of their victims.
This is "crony statism."
I hope that intellectual activists for a rights-respecting society are busy specializing in studying one or the other of these manipulative organizations so that they, the activists, can write (fully documented) books and testify as experts in whatever media will interview them.
At 9:16 AM ,
Brad Williams said...
I do recommend reading the entire article, which ends with speculation that "green" regulation (see also http://tinyurl.com/nl7hn3) is setting up the next bubble -- and the bubble masters are ready and willing.
A question for you Burgess: what is the purpose of statements of the form "I hope that others are doing X"?
At 10:31 AM ,
Burgess Laughlin said...
The purpose of statements in the form of "I hope that others are doing X" is to present possibilities for action that I see as a result of surveying my own culture, in part, and especially reading about the history of movements.
No one person has time to take advantage of all opportunities. But I have found over the years that merely mentioning a possibility to an audience, such as the one presumably reading the comments of a weblog, might result in a light bulb lighting up and then action following--leading to a better world for me and those I value. Feedback I have received privately confirms the value of mentioning these opportunities.
In other words, the process is planting seeds.
At 12:05 PM ,
Brad Williams said...
I have been pondering this, and I believe the implication of "free advice" is that some others need it, i.e., they are second-handers who need to find their motivation and life goals among the suggestions found in blog comments. I believe this cannot work the way you suggest. Great acts and life purposes can only spring from a profoundly selfish psychological process, in which one finds and identifies *by oneself* one's own Love to pursue. Let me ask you this: can you imagine an Ayn Rand novel hero pursuing a grand goal -- which started as the suggestion of another?
The wider principle here is (to put it stylistically): You can't help other people. This is true in economics (hand-outs breed dependents); parenting (do a task for a small child and he or she won't learn the skill and self-esteem of doing it independently); education, and surely much more.
At 2:23 PM ,
Burgess Laughlin said...
> "I do recommend reading the entire article, which . . ."
I did finish a straight-through reading of the "complete" Matt Taibbi article on "lambert's blog." (Inferring from the ellipses in the linked Taibbi article, and from an introductory comment, I assume the actual, original article is not available online.)
I have the same reactions I had from the quick, partial reading:
- The author, despite his statist bias (pro tax and regulation) has identified a phenomenon worthy of fully objective study which could be the source for a lot of activism about the corruption of the mixed economy. (Actually this article confirms what I have seen before--that conservatives and "liberals" are most useful when uncovering dirt about each other. In this case, the author has turned over a rock that exposes both "liberal" and conservative administration actions.)
- As far as causation goes, the author is superficial in his analysis (blaming unrestrained greed), but he validly identifies an important social phenomenon: individuals going back and forth between state and "business" and weaving a web of coercion. This is the same phenomenon that Pres. Eisenhower warned about when he talked 50 years ago about the "military-industrial complex." The social side, of course, is an expression of the final cause: ideas. The question is: What ideas allow "power of pull" to operate?
- Specializing in this subject would be a great project for someone (else). Such projects, in the dozens, should be part of the battle against statism (and its roots).
Thanks for recommending the article. I will now be more alert to this corruption, along with all the other polluted streams upwelling in the last few years. And that includes the predicted green bubble. I was already vaguely familiar with that through European reporting about the cap-and-trade circus in Europe. I don't recall the details.
At 3:10 PM ,
Burgess Laughlin said...
> "I have been pondering this, and I believe the implication of "free advice" is that some others need it, . . ."
I don't see any such implication. How did you arrive at your conclusion?
> ". . . i.e., they are second-handers who need to find their motivation and life goals among the suggestions found in blog comments."
I certainly agree that defining one's life goals is an intimate process which must arise in one's own mind--but working from the data of the senses, including helpful comments made by others in society. The purpose of the latter is trade, and one form of trade is offering friendly suggestions that might lead, directly or indirectly to action.
> "I believe this cannot work the way you suggest. Great acts and life purposes can only spring from a profoundly selfish psychological process, in which one finds and identifies *by oneself* one's own Love to pursue."
Yes and no. The choice, arising from one's own personal experiences and insights, must be personal. That doesn't mean arising in isolation, if that is what you are suggesting. For example, I chose my central purpose in life, but the idea of "central purpose in life" was a very helpful gift from Ayn Rand through her writings and interviews.
I doubt that you are, but from the first I wondered if you are denying the possibility or propriety of influence. That means giving someone an idea that that person wants in order to help him achieve goals he has set for himself. If a master sculptor suggests to a student--formal or informal--that holding a chisel in a certain way for a certain kind of marble carving will achieve a certain result, that master has influenced the student, if the student wants that idea and incorporates it into his life.
The influenced person must want the idea being offered and he must have a context-setting purpose in mind within which he can fit the new idea. He has been helped by another person while retaining full independence. There is no second-handedness involved.
(cont.)
At 3:18 PM ,
Burgess Laughlin said...
> "Let me ask you this: can you imagine an Ayn Rand novel hero pursuing a grand goal -- which started as the suggestion of another?"
Started? Yes. That is how thought processes work sometimes. Mr. X suggests doing A, and Mr. Y has a moment of integration: "Not A exactly, but by analogy, I could try B because B would fit perfectly with what I want to do."
A particular missing link or a particular project (which is a concrete) can easily be picked up by another independent person. The grand goal, which sets the context for the missing link or project, has to arise from a long series of integrations personally.
Would a genius such as Howard Roark accept his CPL from another? No. Would he accept suggestions about particulars from another? Absolutely, as he did when Cameron was tutoring him at the start of his career.
Further I can certainly see a Hugh Acton, at a dinner party, casually mentioning the need for a book on the moral, economic, and historical defense of capitalism--and an Andy Bernstein latching onto that if he has already done the preliminary thinking leading up to it and the particular suggestion is the last missing piece.
> "The wider principle here is (to put it stylistically): You can't help other people."
I don't know what you mean here by "stylistically." Also, perhaps you have a special meaning of "help" in mind. Generally though, I would say that that idea is false. Ayn Rand, Harry Binswanger, Leonard Peikoff, and you have helped me. You have offered me ideas that I can consider and integrate into my context.
In good humor, I can suggest making sure to avoid the fallacy of self-reference: You are helping me to see that it isn't possible or, if it is, it isn't good, to help another?
I welcome this discussion because it is very close to the core of my life. Trying to have influence, which is the main purpose of debate, is a one element in what I have been studying for 13 years.
At 10:52 PM ,
Brad Williams said...
I meant rather to say: The wider principle here is (to put it in a stylized way): You can't help other people. I stand by this. It is not literally true in a general way, of course, but it is true in a certain, important psychological sense: one cannot help another live his life or actualize himself or become the fountainhead of his own purpose and happiness.
Notice Roark's response to Keating's request for advice: that the first mistake is to ask for advice. Roark cannot -- metaphysically -- give Keating good advice; there is no such thing as good advice on the fundamental issue of how to be oneself. The advice Roark does give (do work) has no significant content. One cannot help another in issues of independence. This is very different from Roark treating Cameron, temporarily, as a mentor.
The choice of career or a major life goal is something which can only be discovered when abstracting away -- ignoring -- what other people hope or want. This is why I don't think a statement of what you would like someone to do with their time is likely to help anyone in the way you seem to expect.
I have an inkling that this is related to something D. told me once, that a fiction writer should not mention a story idea to anyone else prematurely, because the act of making it public casts a great psychological burden on the writer. The private nature of a soul's act of (self-)creation should be respected.
This also makes me think of the principle in child-rearing that it is very destructive to say "good job" every time Johnny does a good job. Bringing attention to the fact that someone else is judging the act ruins the private meaning of the moment for the actor.
At 4:07 AM ,
Burgess Laughlin said...
> ". . . one cannot help another live his life or actualize himself or become the fountainhead of his own purpose and happiness."
Agreed.
My stating my hope was, at best, irrelevant; at worst, it would be arrogant--if one assumes it was meant to apply to a particular person. It wasn't, but that wouldn't be clear from anything I said in the comment.
I have learned from the discussion.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home