Rebuttal 2 (cont.)

1. Will Ricciardella says:

   June 24, 2013 at 11:03 pm

   Hello Aaron and Mike,

   Thanks for your responses.

   Aaron,

   you say the Classical Liberal vision is not the “best” answer, however, you offer no alternative. I know that anything other throughout history has been a massive failure. The only system to help the individual from racism, penury and each other the most throughout human history has been when people were free, not only politically but economically. Sometimes you have one without the other, as seen in with Pinochet in Chile or the PRC in China (which is not as free as you think due to corporatism/socialism). But the thing we most definitely see most often is that when you have a free market, you see the people move more towards political freedom a al Chile. Yes, you are correct about the individual being more about family. Obviously who’s going to be more concerned about family, a mother, father, grandmother, grandfather or the state? But what the individual chooses is the individuals choice alone, without coercion.

   I am confused on how this can be an “evil” or the “least of evils”, least from other disperate systems that advocate massive centralized power and/or planning? we know what that has led to throughout history, from the Roman empire on through the USSR or National Socialism in Germany.

   When you say “radical individualism” are you referring to Adam Smith, or anarcho-capitalists such as Menger and Rothbard? If it is the latter I would most certainly agree, however I would have to establish your political baseline in order to fully comprehend the term as per your perspective. Certainly some in the Austrian school can be perceived that way and rightfully so. However, that is not the classical liberalism of Lord Acton, Bastiat, Friedman, Stigler or even Mises (considered more of a minarchist).

   Mike,

   you bring up 19th century Britain during the industrial revolution and I’m glad you did. You also use the word “exploitation” again, I would refer you to my explanation of the zero-sum fallacy again, as that argument lacks cogency. I will lay out again why this is so.

   If the conditions were so horrible and exploitative, why were so many workers moving from rural areas in order to enter the workforce? Many people on the left bring this example up without providing proper context or comparison from an earlier period. If life before was so non-exploitative and harmonious, why move to the industrial city to be “exploited”? Now, you’re not going to get an argument from me that conditions weren’t atrocious, but you must ask why those conditions improved. We know that industry was in it’s infancy, the only comparable difference in the workplace those people at the time had was between their occupations before the Industrial revolution.

   Now, why did conditions improve? We know as the industrial revolution continued on so did wealth creation, technological advances in safety and medicine that helped improve conditions and the lives of many of these workers. A direct result of the industrial revolution, of which we still reap the rewards today. It may not have happened fast enough, but it seems as though it was a better life than previously imagined, if great migrations from rural to urban areas count as evidence or “votes” in favor of industry.

   As for your premises on unions, I totally agree that people should have a right to assemble, willingly, But who protects the worker from the union? Coercion is always unjust, whether it originates from the state or a union. You neglected to mention that union membership is not voluntary, it comes at a cost, not only to union members but to other workers and to capital allocation. You call unions “labor”, yes they do in fact “work” but hardly represent “labor” in the general sense. Who mitigates the individual laborer or the non-union laborer from exploitation from the union? Is it possible that labor v. firms is not “good v. evil” respectively. As Thomas Sowell once said “unions are for unions like corporations are for corporations”. I would add to that and say that former is not voluntary why the latter is. Any time competition is restricted on either the input or output end it comes at a cost to society as it is our only true protection from firms and “labor”.

   Mike and Aaron,

   I appreciate your perspectives and knowledge, thanks to both of you. Mike, I know its been a long time, but I just recently delved into the blogging universe. It’s nice to see other people out with there with similar interests and knowledge.

   Will