Saturday 20 August 2011

Response To Harry Adamopoulos

Sirs,

After referring to the discovery of Lin Keh-hsiao's (林克孝) body by search and rescue teams as an example of how the "rich get special perks", Harry Adamopoulos goes on to write:
"If you are wondering why London is burning up and revolutions are taking place in the Arab world, look no further than these types of injustices. While the weak suffer, the rich bask in their little world of grandeur."
That is extremely myopic.

The various acts of assault, theft and arson committed during the riots in London and elsewhere in England were not motivated by the (as yet still unestablished) injustice of the Mark Duggan shooting. They were the opportunistic expression of nihilistic fun by a growing culture of petty criminality and unwarranted sense of entitlement - one which has been operantly conditioned by welfare-state policies for decades.

The revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia were motivated by the broader injustices of a dictatorial political economy exacerbated by monetary mismanagement and the rise in worldwide grain prices caused by the U.S. infatuation with ethanol subsidies - motivated, in part, by the environmental movement.

The general injustice of the rich getting better treatment than the poor which Harry Adamopoulos refers to is a result of the existence of State monopolies on such treatment. Police search and rescue teams are monopolized by the government. Access to education, employment, housing and services are increasingly monopolized by government-imposed conditions in the UK. Price distortion, monetary mismanagement and political persecution are all the products of government monopolies. The answer is to abolish these monopolies to release people from the burdens they impose and to enable free competition in the provision of critical services.

Blaming the rich for the injustices of the State is as myopic and thoughtless as Robespierre's "la Terreur" pogroms carried out in the aftermath of the French Revolution.

Yours freely,
Michael Fagan.

(Sent: Saturday 20th August 2011. Unpublished by the Taipei Times.)

Urrghh... Brain-fart: That conclusion to that penultimate paragraph originally read: "The answer is to abolish these monopolies to release free competition in all of these areas." On re-reading that, I realized it looks like I am arguing for free competition in "price distortion, monetary mismanagement and political persecution"! I've corrected it, and resent the letter with this correction.

10 comments:

  1. I think you truly fail to see the sentiment. I'm going to try and explain it to you so it makes sense. I'm not trying to demean you, instead attempting to explain it to you in terms that are relevant to you.

    Ok, let's talk about Johnny Rioter and Govt George. Rich people are an existential thing. They can generally avoid or circumvent any govt restrictions imposed on them. My personal favorite being "millionaire taxes" in the US which generally cause a flight of capital from the state(New Jersey lost 70 billion dollars worth of residents in their state from people fleeing)

    Govt George doesn't understand poverty, regulations, and the adverse effect his policies inflict on other people. He thinks he's doing great with his iron rice bowl job and full pension. Sure, taxes are high and certain parts of town are dangerous, but he does his best with in his views.

    Johnny Rioter on the other hand realizes very painfully that outside of illegal/grey market activities he's completely farked on any chance to start a business or to better his station in life, though he does quite well off of govt, short of getting a govt job, his options are limited. The police aren't going to protect him, regulations make almost everything impossible and the schools are a joke.

    So when the police seemingly screw up and shoot a guy and looting starts, someone with nothing left to lose takes his chance and gets as much stuff as he can carry in his grubby mitts. Same with what happened in the Arab world. People got fed up of their only option in life to better themselves was to get a govt job. They can't vote people out, so they riot and demonstrate.

    Now the key thing for govts to do is to relax regulation and allow people to open businesses and have an opportunity to better themselves. I know of no one on the Tory side who is going to let that happen. As far as the Arab world, well I expect them to blame Israel, blow themselves up, and riot again.

    So as long as they see rich people circumventing a system that stifles them, they will riot. They will idiotically blame the rich rather than the govt and be left to wallow in the filth the state provides. The people rioting don't realize how capital is accrued and wealth created because it is out of reach to them. If you were to go up to one and say you can become rich with a legal business if you save and work hard, they'd look at you like you said they had an elephant's nose on their face. The idea would be that outlandish to them. If on the other hand you said it was possible for them to Govt George, he would readily agree and lament the poor work ethic of this generation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "I think you truly fail to see the sentiment."

    No, that's just how it seems to you.

    "The people rioting don't realize how capital is accrued and wealth created because it is out of reach to them."

    Not because it is out of reach to them, but because they dismiss the question for that reason (or the perception). I understand that there must be a monstrous sense of despair and self-loathing among these people, but again, like the sense of entitlement thrown out to them as a life-line by left-wing politicists in higher education and at places like the BBC, this is a result of operant conditioning by welfare-statism over generations now.

    I'm poor too, but I wouldn't have gone round setting fire to other people's cars and putting bricks through other people's shop windows like some peanut-minded, gangsta-rapper MacBeth. And it's not just libertarian me either, there were plenty of people who you couldn't describe as "rich" out on the streets to defend their area (e.g. the Milwall supporters in Ealing).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Michael,

    How do you define "sense of entitlement"?
    I would be willing to bet that most of those people want a job that provides a living wage, but are unable to get one in the current circumstances. This "entitlement" to work and earn a living is at the root of their actions.

    You're not poor Michael, and you could make a lot more money if you wanted to. You simply choose not to. These people have no choice.

    -Derek-

    ReplyDelete
  4. "How do you define "sense of entitlement"?"

    By reference to two things: (a) what they expect other people to give them gratis via the State, and (b) what types of responses they expect other people (their victims) to refrain from.

    "This "entitlement" to work and earn a living is at the root of their actions."

    You have a right to be free (negative liberty), but to claim a right or entitlement to a job with a living wage (or whatever other conditions you might wish to add), entails that somebody else has an obligation to give it to you.

    In order to fulfill demands for Peter's positive liberty (his "living wage job"), the State must commit infractions against Paul's negative liberty. Once that point is crossed, then on what principle can you limit and check the growth of the State?

    "You're not poor Michael..."

    I am.

    "...you could make a lot more money if you wanted to. You simply choose not to."

    That's true.

    "These people have no choice."

    Haven't you just simply assumed that? I don't think it is true - like me, some of them could probably do other things but simply choose not to.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Haven't you just simply assumed that? I don't think it is true - like me, some of them could probably do other things but simply choose not to."

    Possibly, but what if an individual living in England could not convince anyone to give him/her a job, and that person also cannot convince someone to give him/her a loan to start their own company. Then what?

    I realize that there is no perfect economic system, but it seems that these people should have some access to the basic means to life.

    -Derek-

    ReplyDelete
  6. "I realize that there is no perfect economic system, but it seems that these people should have some access to the basic means to life."

    Sure, but since that "seems" to be the case (and I agree: it is - given caveats about criminal behaviour), then that only strengthens the libertarian position that civil society is the best solution. People will of their own accord recognize cases of true misfortune and do what they can to help.

    But they should not be enslaved by the State into giving up their own values for "redistribution" on this or any other excuse.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "People will of their own accord recognize cases of true misfortune and do what they can to help."

    An optimistic and morally upright argument for the "trickle down" effect?

    -Derek-

    ReplyDelete
  8. No: the "trickle-down effect" concerns living standards and is used as a consequentialist argument typically made by the Right against high taxes on the rich and regulations restricting capital investment.

    What I am saying is different: under less intrusive and extensive government, charity and help for the poor will be more common and no longer the preserve of rich philanthropists. The more intrusive and extensive government becomes, the more this becomes an unaffordable luxury and the worse the plight of the poor becomes.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

Comment moderation is now in place, as of April 2012. Rules:

1) Be aware that your right to say what you want is circumscribed by my right of ownership here.

2) Make your comments relevant to the post to which they are attached.

3) Be careful what you presume: always be prepared to evince your point with logic and/or facts.

4) Do not transgress Blogger's rules regarding content, i.e. do not express hatred for other people on account of their ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation or nationality.

5) Remember that only the best are prepared to concede, and only the worst are prepared to smear.