Unequal Scenes portrays scenes of inequality in South Africa from the air. Discrepancies in how people live are sometimes hard to see from the ground. The beauty of being able to fly is to see things from a new perspective - to see things as they really are. Looking straight down from a height of several hundred meters, incredible scenes of inequality emerge. Some communities have been expressly designed with separation in mind, and some have grown more or less organically.
During apartheid, segregation of urban spaces was instituted as policy. Roads, rivers, “buffer zones” of empty land, and other barriers were constructed and modified to keep people separate. 22 years after the end of apartheid, many of these barriers, and the inequalities they have engendered, still exist. Oftentimes, communities of extreme wealth and privilege will exist just meters from squalid conditions and shack dwellings.
Order is, at one and the same time, that which is given in things as their inner law, the hidden network that determines the way they confront one another, and also that which has no existence except in the grid created by a glance, an examination, a language; and it is only in the blank spaces of this grid that order manifests itself in depth as though already there, waiting in silence for the moment of its expression.
Dave: “According to my interpretation of him [Graf/me], we can use is-statements to describe what rights are and to determine what is a violation of rights. The only ought-statement in the area of rights answers the simple question, ought we to fulfill the duties defined by property rights? (In case I am not being clear, note that Graf does not claim that this is the only ought question in the realm of morality, just the only ought-statement that pertains to this particular subject, property rights.)”
I think this is a good representation of one of the main points I was making, yes (although “rights” is problematic, as so much easy confusion is associated with the word, so I use NAP violations, as defined within, to be more specific).
I argue that the use of the word “ethics” in Rothbard’s and Hoppe’s works (right in the titles) has also helped cement confusion in this area. They were speaking almost entirely of property theory, which is within the domain of legal theory. “Ethics” has been used in Austrian circles to differentiate some “not economics” issues from economics; the problem being that there was more than one field that was “not economics” for these purposes and this fact was more profound than was generally recognized. I argue that ethics proper is one such field while property/legal theory is quite another (and, linked by praxeological, counterfactual method, relatively closer to (Misesian) economics than to ethics).
The simplest illustrative version is to say that property/legal theory tells what theft IS, while ethical theory can offer advice on whether or not one ought to engage in activities thereby defined as theft. Totally different issues. Ethical theory advises on action decisions; property/legal theory does the defining: “So now that you know what theft is (thanks to property/legal theory), what are you going to do about it? (consult ethics, etc.).”
By this point, legal positivism is irrelevant to understanding in terms of justice, and the Matrix has been exited. NAP violations are defined in the context of a specific field of knowledge with its own methods and validity criteria that are completely independent of the claims of any jurisdiction and indeed regardless of time or place. Specifics of time and place are addressed under interpretation (Mises’s “thymology”) and legal practice (which has/should have its own ethical principles!), as distinct from legal theory itself.
Economics must not be relegated to classrooms and statistical offices and must not be left to esoteric circles. It is the philosophy of human life and action and concerns everybody and everything. It is the pith of civilization and of man’s human existence… In such vital matters blind reliance upon “experts” and uncritical acceptance of popular catchwords and prejudices is tantamount to the abandonment of self-determination and to yielding to other people’s domination.
As conditions are today, nothing can be more important to every intelligent man than economics… Whether we like it or not, it is a fact that economics cannot remain an esoteric branch of knowledge accessible only to small groups of scholars and specialists. Economics deals with society’s fundamental problems; it concerns everyone and belongs to all. It is the main and proper study of every citizen.
Risk-taker Michael E. Tennenbaum is a financier, adventurer, and philanthropist, in his debut book, he delivers intriguing insider details on how “impossible” deals are completed, along with an inspiring guide to applying risk-taking successfully to your business and personal life. Pre-order Risk: Living on the Edge by Michael E. Tennenbaum today!
“Much like the US and the western European nations, the standards of living in the Nordic countries are based not on having invented a wonderful system that can provide for everyone’s needs, but based on the exploitation of resources and labor of the global south. Lenin described one of the key tendencies of imperialism as ‘the exploitation of oppressed nations—which is inseparably connected with annexations—and especially the exploitation of colonies by a handful of 'Great’ Powers, increasingly transforms the 'civilised’ world into a parasite on the body of hundreds of millions in the uncivilised nations.’ While the large colonial empires of Lenin’s time have largely dispersed, the relationships have not so much disappeared as they have changed form. The global south is exploited, and the western powers profit.”
Question for libertarians: how do they get anything done in France?
Looking at Wikipedia, France’s GDP per capita is about 2/3 the US’s. A bit higher if you account for PPP, a bit lower if you don’t.
I don’t know if snapshots of unemployment rates are comparable, especially with a recent pandemic. But I predict that France typically has a higher fraction of “unemployed people, out of people of working age and not currently studying” or whatever’s a good metric. (“Unemployment rate” typically excludes people who’ve given up looking for work, which favours countries with a strong safety net. But honestly I expect France to have a higher one of those too. Wiki snapshots if you are curious are US 3.8% Feb 2022, France 7.3% Apr 2021.)
And correlation is not causation, plus this is like a tiny snapshot of the available data that I don’t expect to convince anyone. But I’m libertarian ish because I expect there is causation here, that France’s high worker protections do cause them to do fewer things at higher cost than they would otherwise.
And also I expect that this is a real cost, it has an invisible graveyard in terms of life getting better over time; in terms of those laid off workers getting new jobs; in terms of people who can create small amounts of economic value, instead creating zero.
(I’m less confident that it’s not worth the cost. Like, people working isn’t good of itself, it’s good because they typically produce economically valuable goods and services when they work. There must be some point where improving current quality of life in exchange for slower progress is a good tradeoff.)
(Bunch of other caveats apply that I don’t feel like thinking of and writing explicitly.)
But I predict that France typically has a higher fraction of “unemployed people, out of people of working age and not currently studying” or whatever’s a good metric.
If labor force participation rate is an acceptable metric, your prediction is false.
As of 2019, roughly 72% for France and 63% for the US.
Those figures are not comparable; the French number is for ages 15 to 64 (!), The American ones for ages 16 andup. Anyone can get a high labour participation rate by cutting retirees from the count!
Oops, my bad. I thought US statistics also cut off at 64, but obviously they do not.
I haven’t had any luck finding current data on the US rate for ages 16-64, but here is a chart showing data through 2013 for a group of eight countries.
I would eyeball that as France at about 71% and the US at about 73% in 2013, and the previous graphs show rates as being pretty flat from 2013 to 2019, so I retract the claim.
Question for libertarians: how do they get anything done in France?
Looking at Wikipedia, France’s GDP per capita is about 2/3 the US’s. A bit higher if you account for PPP, a bit lower if you don’t.
I don’t know if snapshots of unemployment rates are comparable, especially with a recent pandemic. But I predict that France typically has a higher fraction of “unemployed people, out of people of working age and not currently studying” or whatever’s a good metric. (“Unemployment rate” typically excludes people who’ve given up looking for work, which favours countries with a strong safety net. But honestly I expect France to have a higher one of those too. Wiki snapshots if you are curious are US 3.8% Feb 2022, France 7.3% Apr 2021.)
And correlation is not causation, plus this is like a tiny snapshot of the available data that I don’t expect to convince anyone. But I’m libertarian ish because I expect there is causation here, that France’s high worker protections do cause them to do fewer things at higher cost than they would otherwise.
And also I expect that this is a real cost, it has an invisible graveyard in terms of life getting better over time; in terms of those laid off workers getting new jobs; in terms of people who can create small amounts of economic value, instead creating zero.
(I’m less confident that it’s not worth the cost. Like, people working isn’t good of itself, it’s good because they typically produce economically valuable goods and services when they work. There must be some point where improving current quality of life in exchange for slower progress is a good tradeoff.)
(Bunch of other caveats apply that I don’t feel like thinking of and writing explicitly.)
But I predict that France typically has a higher fraction of “unemployed people, out of people of working age and not currently studying” or whatever’s a good metric.
If labor force participation rate is an acceptable metric, your prediction is false.
As of 2019, roughly 72% for France and 63% for the US.
New IFS research today shows that the average debt a student has on graduating university has risen to over £50,000. For the students coming from the lowest income families, this can be as much as £57,000 with £5,800 of that purely from interest accrued since starting their courses.
Under the Conservative government, student loans have been increased from £3,000 per year to £9,000 per year. Maintenance grants for low-income students have been replaced by extra loan allowance. Student loans are set to increase in line with inflation (or by £250 per year) for the foreseeable future, starting in September, regardless of teaching quality.
The IFS sees only two winners from the current system, and it’s certainly not the students who benefit. Students earning the minimum amount of repayments - which has been frozen at £21,000 for several years - are estimated to be 30% worse off than their equivalents under the old loan system. No, the only beneficiaries are the universities (although not 90% of their employees) and the government.
So what do you think, voters? How can we, as a voting force, work together to end this stranglehold the UK government has on us? We want to hear your ideas to fix what is becoming a very, very broken system, one which stifles recent graduates and the UK economy as a whole.
Young Voters UK is today officially committing to fighting Conservative policies on student finance.
Also why are we punishing the Russian citizens for the actions of the government
We’re not punishing the citizens, we’re punishing the government systems they use to make those payments so the citizens are more likely to take action like protest against their government instead of just saying “not my problem”
Thrusting millions of people into poverty through economic strangulation is in fact targeting its citizens. It is delusional, calloused, and dangerous to suggest otherwise. It also almost always does not work. The US stealing 3.5 billion in Afghan assets and sanctioning Afghanistan hasn’t led to the people rising up and overthrowing the Taliban. It’s led to millions more people being plunged into poverty to the point that thousands of parents are having to sell their own organs to keep their children fed. Even if you think that the end result IS a popular uprising that result is reached through intentional mass emmiseration.
“More likely to take action and protest”
People have ALREADY been protesting Putin’s government–even before sanctions–but guess what, you can’t just fucking snap your fingers and overthrow a government. So now you have people still protesting but with less resources to survive and no job to return to. Congratulations?
Why is Russia punishing Ukraine citizens with an aggressive invasion of their country? Who is that helping? What homes and jobs and schools do they have to go back to? What about those who had to flee across international borders with nothing but their children and what they could carry, while risking being shot by Russian soldiers? Or shelled by Russian artillery?
They didn’t start aggressively invading a neighbouring country.
Acts of international aggression are not a purity contest, nor are they clear lines in the sand. War hurts civilians before it ever touches those in power.
The real question to ask in the wake of how unfair it all is, is: why are those in charge in Russia hurting the civilians of two countries?
Also why are we punishing the Russian citizens for the actions of the government
Because we live under a system that conflates wealth with power, and power with the ability to compel others to do what one wants them to do, while remaining insulated from the consequences of one’s actions.
As a result, it’s impossible to punish the rich and powerful without also punishing the poor and powerless a lot more.
I’ve seen a lot of posts and comments asking what the US/NATO/etc. should be doing instead, and the problem is that there are no good options.
The world’s options vis-à-vis Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are:
1. Do nothing. Let Putin take Ukraine without international opposition–which will lead not only to crimes against humanity in Ukraine, but is also likely to encourage him to keep going and invade other places that he feels like should be part of Russia.
2. Impose sanctions that cause real and immediate suffering to millions of ordinary people, in the hopes that eventually some of the harm will make its way through the thick layers of wealth and arrogance to affect someone who has some influence over the situation.
3. World War Three–which will not only cause even more harm and suffering to the ordinary people of both Ukraine and Russia, but could also lead to global thermonuclear war, i.e., the end of human life as we know it.
These are all really, really shitty options. Putin has made it very clear that direct military intervention in Ukraine–boots on the ground, planes in the air, or ships in the sea–will be considered an act of war, and if the US or any NATO country is at war with Russia, that’s World War Three. Putin has also been conspicuously drawing our attention to his massive stockpile of nuclear weapons, and saying, more or less, “Do you feel lucky, punk?”
And option 1–let him do it–has a good chance of turning into option 3 eventually. That’s how we got World War II: the rest of the world, desperate to avoid a re-play of the Great War, let Hitler take Austria, and then Czechoslovakia, in return for promises that he would leave the rest of Europe alone. He broke that promise by invading Poland, and…well, we all have some idea of how that turned out. Based on this historical precedent, letting Putin take Ukraine without international opposition would be a dangerous move–even leading aside any moral or ethical considerations relating to Ukraine’s sovereignty.
So, sanctions. Because out of a list of, I say it again, extremely bad options, it’s the least-worst.
To be clear, the point of the sanctions is notto cause a popular uprising against Putin, as some have said above. The point is to make the invasion as difficult, costly, and politically unpopular as possible, in order to convince Putin that the invasion isn’t worth his while–ideally, to pull back out of Ukraine, but at minimum, if Ukraine does fall, to quit while he’s ahead and not invade Poland. (Metaphorically or literally.)
There’s no way to target the sanctions so that they hurt the rich and powerful while leaving the ordinary people alone, because “rich and powerful” means that you have the ability to pile up a bunch of other people between yourself and any inconvenience.
It sucks. It feels shitty, because it is. And the whole thing is Putin’s fault–he’s the one that’s holding a nuclear missile to the world’s head while he makes us watch him commit war crimes in Ukraine. He can stop any time he wants.
And that’s why he has his troll farms JAQ-ing off about the suffering of the ordinary Russian people–it’s all about making it look like it’s somebody else’s fault.
Hey y'all remember how Russian agents used misinformation on Tumblr posing as leftists to influence the 2016 election
And so begins my degree in politics, philosophy and economics, all whilst still working full time… #politics #philosophy #economics #degree #openuniversity #uni #education #cresshorst #boxersofinstagram #fitfam #democracy #democratic #socialism #socialist #iifym #flexibledieting #politicalrevolution #peoplebeforeprofit #study #studying #socialsecurity #welfare #parliament
