The Most Basic Condition of Civilisation

Image credit

For what is the most basic condition of civilization, Hudson asks, other than societal organization that effects lasting “balance” by keeping “everybody above the break-even level”?

The source.

How Good Is Science Today Really?

Image credit

What people do not understand is that science IS NOT AN AUTHORITY but A PROCESS OF CHALLENGING AUTHORITY.

A very primitive, immature and unscientific conception of science has captured the public mind — science as the repository of ultimate truth. The dignity and authority of good science — which is always fallible and hospitable to questioners — is being abused to make people believe in ultimate truths when the purview of genuine science is not final but incessantly evolving knowledge.

By debasing science to the status of "ultimate source of apodictic truth", the charlatanry is invited of those who are eager to impress the seal of unquestionable authority on their agendas, no matter what. Some will act this way because they are dishonest, even quite consciously so; others succumb to dazzlement and self-conceit. Both have lost touch with the scientific method. As science is moved away from its critical-corroborative capacity toward a role of validator of what is socially acceptable,  the type and attitude of those associated with it shift away from the profile of the soberly objective researcher toward the zealot — high priest or humble believer — of socially fashionable articles of faith.

At some point the latter type is so predominant in terms of power and numbers that "scientists" no longer understand the point of science, having lost the capacity for rational self-control. At this point, a modern society tilts back into an age of mythical thinking.

The source.

Social Symmetries

Image credit

As the modern state evolved it was discovered that it is the form of government  which subjects itself to restrictions of its power that turns out to be most effective in terms of advancing the interests of its constituent population.

There is a social symmetry between the interests of the state and the interests of the population. To be most effective, the state must allow its clients to put restrictions on it. For the state to be powerful (in a way that is socially effective) it must accept the power of the people to restrict it.

A self-reinforcing social symmetry.

There seems to be a similar social symmetry involved in the way in which alpha animals are selected and supported by the population they belong to. They are required to make substantial contributions to the community, which goods they can only deliver if they conform to exacting social demands from those who they lead. While demonstrating superior (physical and charismatic, and even more importantly social) power they must balance their drive for dominance by restricting their behaviour so as to be able to provide their peer group with significant social benefits. They must be disciplined and strongly restrained (rather than self-aggrandising) to be able to make the requisite contributions. 

The truly powerful state is not the totalitarian state (which is always headed for burnout) but a state where power is plural, competitively controlled, and hence balanced. 

The successful alpha animal is not a bully but a social worker. 

Wealth — A Discussion

Image credit

Only available in English.


Here are some thoughts and replies from the comments section of this post by Willis Eschenbach: 

MY INITIAL COMMENT:


I have two philosophical points to make that do not necessarily affect your main argument, but still may be of interest:

1) There is a fourth way of creating wealth: trade / exchange. Say, you have a pack of chocolate but you hate chocolate, while you absolutely love gummy bears. You meet somebody with the inverse set of likes and dislikes. So, you exchange your sweets, and each one has created wealth, where it had not been available to him before.

This leads me to the definition of wealth: The essence of wealth is the ability to satisfy a desire (at one’s discretion). The successful fulfilment of a desire may be classified as a gain, a benefit or an advantage vis-à-vis a state of affairs, when no such fulfilment has been accomplished.

By extension then “creating wealth” refers to an act that provides one with “a gain, a benefit, an advantage” ( i. e. results of the fulfilment at one’s discretion of a desire/desires).

2) On these grounds, I would challenge your thesis:

“Everything [except the above three ways of creating wealth] else is services—bankers, barbers, bookkeepers, surgeons, stylists, singers. They are important, some are life-and-death important … but they don’t create any wealth.”

Services like cutting somebody’s hair do create wealth. For instance, assuming a “normal” human being, if I [or a doctor] manage[s] to heal my broken little finger, I have been provided “with a gain, a benefit, or an advantage” that I have strongly desired and whose immediate provision at my urgent discretion represents a capacity that we call wealthiness. I suspect, most wealth creating services may be classified with other forms of manufacturing.

THE REPLY

Georg Thomas says:

I have two philosophical points to make that do not necessarily affect your main argument, but still may be of interest:

1) There is a fourth way of creating wealth: trade / exchange. Say, you have a pack of chocolate but you hate chocolate, while you absolutely love gummy bears. You meet somebody with the inverse set of likes and dislikes. So, you exchange your sweets, and each one has created wealth, where it had not been available to him before.

Clearly you are not an accountant. Since I am one, I can assure you that trading assets does NOT create wealth. If I give you $100 worth of coffee and you give me $100 worth of tea, there is no wealth created. Ask your accountant, or the IRS, if you don’t believe me.

You also say:

Services like cutting somebody’s hair do create wealth. For instance, assuming a “normal” human being, if I [or a doctor] manage[s] to heal my broken little finger, I have been provided “with a gain, a benefit, or an advantage” that I have strongly desired and whose immediate provision at my urgent discretion represents a capacity that we call wealthiness. I suspect, most wealth creating services may be classified with other forms of manufacturing.

I’m sorry, but that is not true. To understand this, suppose there are two couples on a tropical island. One person fishes, one has a garden, one gathers food and building materials from the forest, one makes clothes from local fiber. They could go on for a long time that way, they are creating real wealth. They will live in comfortable houses, and eat and dress well.

But suppose on the next tropical island there are two couples, and one person is a barber, one is a doctor, one is a journalist, and one is a musician, noble occupations all but services all … that society will have nothing to eat, nothing to wear, nothing to keep them from the rain. They will starve to death naked outdoors. None of those occupations create wealth, while all of the activities on the first island all do create wealth.

Best regards,

w.

MY REPLY

Thank you for your answer. 

I am puzzled.

First you argue wealth is what your accountant or the IRS tells you what it is. Then, you arbitrarily and needlessly impoverish the term “wealth” by equating it with “indispensable requirements for basic survival”. Even your accountant has a broader notion of wealth than you do.

What do you not like about my wider definition of wealth?

Different people have different notions, different classifications of wealth. While the accounting classification may or may not overlap with other classifications (such as mine), it does not invalidate the logic of my reasoning: chocolate does not represent a (wealth-establishing) benefit to me, but gummy bears do (see above). So being able to trade makes the difference between enhancing my wealth and not-enhancing my wealth.

THE REPLY TO MY REPLY:

Thank you for your answer.

I am puzzled.

First you argue wealth is what your accountant or the IRS tells you what it is. Then, you arbitrarily and needlessly impoverish the term “wealth” by equating it with “indispensable requirements for basic survival”. Even your accountant has a broader notion of wealth than you do.

Georg, I didn’t say that “wealth is what your accountant or the IRS tells you what it is”. I said nothing of the sort.

I said that both the IRS and an accountant will tell you that trading an asset for another asset doesn’t create wealth.

Best regards,
w.

MY REPLY:

 You write: “Georg, I didn’t say that “wealth is what your accountant or the IRS tells you what it is”. I said nothing of the sort.” You are right. I apologise for misrepresenting your statement.


REPLY TO MY REPLY:


Georg, you are a gentleman indeed. My thanks.
w.

MORE THOUGHTS OF MINE EXPRESSED IN THAT TREAD:

By way of supplement:

(1) By equating subsistence level production with wealth — and limiting the term "wealth" to that meaning — we would not be able to recognise a difference between US-citizens (who survive) and citizens of Sudan (those, who survive) — they're both wealthy by virtue of being able to survive. It is not trivial to claim that the wealth difference is in actual fact gigantic, and matters tremendously from the point of view of humanism.

(2) Erik Reinert explains in his excellent book how less developed countries can get trapped as eternal low-value-added producers in a comparative advantage world of free trade, requiring protectionist measures to develop and shore up high-value-added domestic industry. I tend to agree with this position. The matter is different with highly developed countries.

However, if we are committed to free trade, we have got to be honest about it. The US-administration is right to call us — hypocritical Europeans — on being the more egregious protectionists.

MORE THOUGHTS OF MINE:

By way of supplement: whether we grow wealth, extract it, manufacture it or realise it by trade/exchange or theft, every form of wealth depends on preconditions antecedent to growth, extraction, manufacture, trade/exchange or theft. Growing wealth, for instance, presupposes a host of physical, biological etc. preconditions. So, the fact that most wealth realised by exchange or theft has further necessary prior conditions (such as the earlier production of the wealth to be realised by exchange or theft) is not unique to trade as a wealth creator. In fact, in a society with a high degree of division of labour growth, extraction or manufacturing will not suffice to ensure the realisation of wealth. Trade will have to do the trick. 

To put it differently: capitalism runs on sales. 

REPLY BY WILLIS:

In fact, in a society with a high degree of division of labour growth, extraction or manufacturing will not suffice to ensure the realisation of wealth. Trade will have to do the trick.

Two points:

First, when I was a kid, our foreign trade was about zero … and the country was flourishing. So the idea that we must have trade doesn’t pass the historical test.

Second, I have no problem with foreign trade … as long as we sell manufactured goods and import raw materials. Doing it the other way around, as we are doing with China, is hugely damaging to our economy by moving our manufacturing, the main way to create wealth, offshore …

That’s just foolish.

w.

MY REPLY TO WILLIS' REPLY: 

You may produce as much goods and services that potentially represent wealth, if you do not act to realise that wealth, there will be no wealth available. In modern societies like the USA, wealth is mostly realised via exchange. Not even (most of) the few who produce our food and clothes (and other basic needs) are autonomous producers, having instead to realise whatever wealth will be available to them eventually via trade/exchange. The quality of our basic and non-basic goods and services would be considerably lower and we could sustain only a fraction of today's populations, if we abandoned trading with one another and regressed to forming communities of autarkic households. Trade is an indispensable condition of wealth in our society. This holds true irrespective of how one assesses the US' current account, the US' terms of trade with other countries or which kind of foreign trade policy one favours.

FURTHER THOUGHTS OF MINE:

My definition of wealth, (see above):

“The essence of wealth is the ability to satisfy a desire (at one’s discretion). The successful fulfilment of a desire may be classified as a gain, a benefit or an advantage vis-à-vis a state of affairs, when no such fulfilment has been accomplished.

By extension then “creating wealth” refers to an act that provides one with “a gain, a benefit, an advantage” ( i. e. results of the fulfilment at one’s discretion of a desire/desires).”

If my definition of wealth is acceptable, then you are factually wrong in claiming that only products derived from activities ensuring basic survival may count as wealth. (Also, you are needlessly burdened with the obligation to list – if called upon to do so – what activities/products count as being able to ensure basic survival ( = wealth)).

Further, there is no practicable or indeed sensible way to disentangle wealth-as-subsistence from wealth-in-non-subsistence-form in a modern economy with a very intricate and deep division of labour and roundabout ways of production (even on the subsistence level).

Wealth in modern society is precisely characterised by the fact that very few people engage in ensuring subsistence, with the majority involved in non-subsistence activities whose provision is key to their being able to survive at the level of basic needs. Also, these non-subsistence activities keep improving, even revolutionising the way in which we ensure basic survival (engineers don’t grow potatoes but they greatly improve the products quality and level of output).

We fare better acknowledging wealth creation in all its forms and ramifications, instead of privileging some activities as being capable of producing wealth while leaving others out of the picture.

STILL FURTHER THOUGHTS OF MINE:

The most important and most fundamental reason why I prefer a fairly broad definition of wealth has to do with the anthropology that I espouse.

My core hypothesis is: man differs from other animals in that he adapts to his environment, survives and thrives by constantly inventing/discovering new desires/needs and constantly trying to fulfil these desires. He never ceases to invent or discover, he never stops attempting to attain a newly conceived benefit (a new element within the arsenal that we call “wealth”). Constitutively, man is a wealth creator— a universal wealth creator, he applies this natural reflex to all aspects of life, not just the part required to ensure basic survival. 

That is also why I believe economic growth is a natural extension of the human condition. Man lives and prevails in his environment by permanently going for new solutions, new benefits, new needs. To deny man his universal drive to create wealth — subject to reasonable moral provisos — is to curtail his humanity. Sir Karl Popper puts is well in his phrase: “all life is problem-solving”. And all this problem-solving is driven by the conception of new needs while being directed toward fulfilment of new human desires.

This shows even in trivial events, such as when you have just toppled your tea-pot. Looking carefully at the way you try to improve the situation, you will find that you are developing desires you have never been pursuing before (you try a new place to keep the pot safely or you do something about the working surface in your kitchen or you discover an uneven part at the bottom of the pot and try to repair it etc.) We are constantly working toward gains, benefits, advantages — and that is how we accumulate and maintain wealth.

FURTHER THOUGHTS OF MINE:

(1) You write: “To understand this, suppose there are two couples on a tropical island. One person fishes, one has a garden, one gathers food and building materials from the forest, one makes clothes from local fiber. They could go on for a long time that way, they are creating real wealth.
 
But suppose on the next tropical island there are two couples, and one person is a barber, one is a surgeon, one is a librarian, and one is a musician—noble occupations all but services all … that society will have nothing to eat, nothing to wear, nothing to keep them from the rain. Those occupations don’t create wealth, while the activities on the first island all do.”
 
Link them via trade and the problem is solved. And all are wealthier.

(2) Once again: You may produce as much goods and services that potentially represent wealth as you like, if you do not act to realise that wealth, there will be no wealth available. In modern societies like the USA, wealth is mostly realised via exchange. Not even (most of) the few who produce our food and clothes (and other basic needs) are autonomous producers, having instead to realise whatever wealth will be available to them eventually via trade/exchange. The quality of our basic and non-basic goods and services would be considerably lower and we could sustain only a fraction of today’s populations, if we abandoned trading with one another and regressed to forming communities of autarkic households. Trade is an indispensable condition of wealth in our society. This holds true irrespective of how one assesses the US’ current account, the US’ terms of trade with other countries or which kind of foreign trade policy one favours.

(3) I don’t think you are right in reducing “real wealth” to activities and goods that ensure basic survival (see my explanations in earlier comments). If wealth of the basic-need-fulfilling-type can be shown to have the same features as wealth of the more-than-just-basic-needs-fulfilling-type, it is factually wrong to equate wealth = subsistence, as you do. Wealth is our ability to fulfil human desires at our discretion. And it is patently wrong to claim that human desires are confined to basic needs and that wealth creation (= the ability to fulfill human desires at our discretion) is confined to fulfilling basic needs.

As I have written above, human beings differ from other animals in that they are wealth-creating machines, they survive, adapt to their environment and thrive by creating and enhancing wealth constantly, far beyond basic needs. This fundamental human trait does not suddenly evaporate when basic needs have been fulfilled. Restricting (the ability to create) wealth to (the ability to fulfill) basic needs is to truncate human nature, denying its true richness.
 
Wealth in modern society is precisely characterised by the fact that very few people engage in ensuring subsistence, with the majority involved in non-subsistence activities whose provision is key to their being able to survive at the level of basic needs. Also, these non-subsistence activities keep improving, even revolutionising the way in which we ensure basic survival.

REPLY:

Let me attempt to reconcile these two apparently different views. Wish me luck. And I won’t mention the island where everybody survives by taking in each other’s laundry.

On one island lives a surgeon, all alone. His “wealth” doesn’t make him rich.

On the other island lives a fisherman, all alone. He gets by until he gets sick.

The fisherman agrees to trade some fish for some health service.

First, YMMV and Bear and all, thanks for your comments.
 
Next, YMMV, at the start of your story, we have two healthy people and one fish.
 
At the end of the story, we have two healthy people and one fish.
Explain to me again about all the wealth that the surgeon has created …
w.

MY REPLY:

You write: “YMMV, at the start of your story, we have two healthy people and one fish [sic].
 
At the end of the story, we have two healthy people and one fish [sic].
 
[YMMV did not say there was “one fish” involved but “some fish”]
Explain to me again about all the wealth that the surgeon has created …”
 
Well, the fisherman got sick and required a cure to get better. Remember: I define wealth as “the fulfillment of a human desire at one’s discretion”. The human desire was to get well. And the surgeon fulfilled that desire enriching his client or adding to his client’s wealth, as opposed to lacking that instance of wealth, and remaining ill.

A REPLY TO MY REPLY:

Remember: I define wealth as “the fulfillment of a human desire at one’s discretion”

Say what? So if I desire to breathe, and I do breathe, I’m creating wealth? If I desire to punch someone in the nose, and I fulfill that desire at my discretion, I’m creating wealth?
 
In the context of economics, or pretty much any context for that matter, that definition makes no sense at all. My last job was the Chief Financial Officer for a company with $40 million dollars in sales per year … if you try to run that definition of “wealth” past your accountant he’ll just laugh.
w.

MY REPLY:

You write: “If I desire to punch someone in the nose, and I fulfill that desire at my discretion, I’m creating wealth?” 

Of course, I am. Bouncers or policemen create wealth that way. It is another matter, if I can get this sort of wealth-seeking socially recognised. Wealth creation is subject to numerous (social etc.) provisos — which is true with respect to any wealth-creating activities including those relating to basic needs —, but this does not invalidate my broad definition as such. Or can you show me that it does?

You write: “… if you try to run that definition of “wealth” past your accountant he’ll just laugh.”

Well, if you try to convince your accountant — or the IRS, for that matter — that wealth creating activities are restricted to the provision of basic needs … let’s see what reaction you get.

REPLY TO MY REPLY:

Georg, I didn’t ask about bouncers or policemen. If I desire to punch you in the nose, and I fulfill that desire at my discretion, have I created wealth? Because that is what you are claiming …
In addition, you seem to be confusing making money with creating wealth … they are far from the same. I can make money cutting hair, but that does not create wealth.
w.

MY REPLY:

You write: ” … you seem to be confusing making money with creating wealth … they are far from the same. I can make money cutting hair, but that does not create wealth.”
 
(1) From my definition of wealth, which you quote, it is indubitable that I do not confuse (equate) creating wealth with making money — my definition is capable of covering both wealth that is accounted for in monetary terms as well as wealth not so documented.
 
Of wealth, we may speak, in my classification, when we have been able to attain a gain, a benefit, an advantage, having reached a higher level of satisfaction compared to a situation when the desired gain, benefit or advantage is absent/unachieved.
So if the service of a barber fulfills that condition, lifting you to a comparatively higher level of satisfaction, he is capable of providing you with wealth.
 
(2) When a bouncer legitimately punches someone’s nose he creates wealth in at least two ways: he achieves a benefit to himself in being able to do the job he is being paid for (here violently but legally fending off an intruder or attacker). And he creates wealth for the person who provides him with income, in that the bouncer ensures the protection from intruders or attackers that his employer seeks. 

Incidentally, the bouncer’s wealth creation by punching noses can be in fulfillment of a basic need (not to get killed) — which provides us with one more example of why confining wealth to basic needs (which bouncing may not appear to be) involves a needlessly and absurdly truncated definition of wealth. Handling basic needs may be significantly improved by activities that may not be classified as serving basic needs ( — is curiosity relating to aerodynamics a basic need?). Another case: your wealth creating islanders may get into a situation where the only basic, survival ensuring need is to be treated by a supposedly non-wealth-creating medical professional, the surgeon.
 
Human needs are an intricate and highly dynamic realm with complex interconnections. People constantly find out about what they need or don’t and in what hierarchy these things are to be fitted. Attempts at wealth creation, understood as the search for new and higher levels of satisfaction, are the epitome of human resourcefulness.
 
To come up with a finite list of wealth-creating (excluding all non-wealth-creating) activities reminds me of the conceit and narrow-mindedness of a command economy where people are directed to engage in “production for use”, based on a central canon that determines which are legitimate and worthy activities and which are not.
 
And once again: by equating subsistence level production (fulfillment of basic needs) with wealth — and limiting the term “wealth” to that meaning — we would not be able to recognise a difference between US-citizens (who survive) and citizens of Sudan (those, who survive) — they are both wealthy by virtue of being able to survive.
 
It is not a trivial matter that the wealth difference is in actual fact gigantic and that difference matters tremendously from the point of view of humanism.

A THOUGHT BY WILLIS: 

Look, suppose I start one of those “send a dollar to every person on this list, cross out the top name, and write your name at the bottom” deals. I will definitely make money, Ponzi proved that … but no wealth is created in the process. For everyone who gained a dollar, someone lost a dollar. All I’ve done is move the money around.
It’s the difference between the baker and the bread store. The baker creates wealth by manufacturing it out of flour and yeast. The bread store does not create wealth.

MY REPLY:

(1) Assuming that a vastly expanded personal budget lifts Ponzi to a higher level of satisfaction (greater gain, the attainment of desired benefits), he clearly realises wealth for himself.
 
We may look at attempts at realising wealth from a hundred different perspectives — legal, moral, social etc. And thus we may condemn or prohibit certain attempts at realising wealth, but this does not affect my basic definition of wealth, rather it affects the admissibility/assessment of attempts at realising wealth in legal, moral, social etc. terms.
 
When we talk about realised wealth, we will see in each case that the criteria laid down in my definition are satisfied.
 
Hence:
 
(2) The bread store is not likely to remain a viable proposition for long unless it realises wealth for itself and helps other people realise wealth, say by optimising and expanding distribution (creating greater convenience to its customers, positive price effects thanks to economies of scale etc.), thereby helping bakers to survive or sell more bread than they would otherwise/or force bakers to cut out inefficiencies, and so on. There are thousands of ways in which a bread store can promote the realisation of wealth for itself and others, for instance by adding a cosy café to the sales counter, a place people love to go to socialise (lifting themselves to a higher level of satisfaction).
 
(3) It is not you, Willis, who decides whether your buyer realises wealth for herself. It is the person that is paying you twice as much as you did at the flea market, who decides whether the purchase is wealth-enhancing to her.
 
I have a friend who always buys very expensive coats. He tells me he feels better to wear the expensive designer ones, it safes him the pain of studying hundreds of different coats, and the difference in money terms just does not matter to him, he is rich enough. He realises wealth for himself (assurance to be dressed socially correct, time saving) notwithstanding the fact that he might have been able to fetch a perfectly acceptable coat at half the price.

The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

Image credit

It's as simple as that.

Say No to Racism

Image credit. Die einst progressive Linke (die wir heute dringend nötig hätten) hat sich in eine zutiefst reaktionäre Kraft verwandelt. Ein Aspekt dieser Metamorphose ist die rassistische Definition des Rassismus, zu der sich die regressive Linke inzwischen bekennt. Das, was schrecklich ist am Rassismus, ist nicht etwas, was nur nicht-weißen ethnischen, rassischen oder an anderen körperlichen Äußerlichkeiten erkennbaren Gruppen widerfahren kann. Jeder Mensch und jede erdenkliche Gruppe oder Gemeinschaft von Menschen kann vom Rassismus betroffen sein. Doch die Linke will nur nicht-weiße Gruppen als Rassismusopfer anerkennen. Sie macht sie zu den Stars und Privilegierten ihrer Identitätspolitik, denen sogar das Recht zugestanden wird, ihrerseits ungestraft Rassismus zu praktizieren. Die regressive Linke hat inzwischen eine Industrie errichtet, um ihre Lieblingsgruppen zu unterstützen, wobei die Industrie-Funktionäre für gewöhnlich weit mehr von solchen Bemühungen haben als die Zielgruppe selbst. Die von der regressiven Linken bevorzugte rassistische Definition des Rassismus ist ein Ablenkungsmanöver, eine Nebelwand, hinter der sich ihre Adepten des schlimmsten Rassismus gegen Andersdenkende und ihre politischen Gegner befleißigen. One of the terrible changes that the left has undergone to mutate from a progressive force (much needed today) into a reactionary force is due to its determination to artificially confine racism to ethnic minorities and turning these into the privileged of identity politics, even entitled to reverse racism. The essential scandal inherent in racism is not something specific to and reserved for certain ethnic groups, let alone only non-white ones. But the regressive left decided to turn racist by confining the notion of racism to non-white minorities, excluding vast groups exposed to dreadful discrimination, while building up enormous industries to privilege the leftists' victims of choice (and actually benefitting the industry management far more than the selected target group as such). The left's racist definition of racism is a smoke screen helping them to perpetrate racism on a vast scale against anyone opposing their views.

German summary below / deutsche Zusammenfassung unten

 
Deutsche Zusammenfassung des englischen Textes unten

Sag' Nein zum Rassismus. Ich fordere alle meine Leser dazu auf, diese Haltung zu leben. Denn in Deutschland herrscht ungezügelter Rassismus. An die Stelle eines rückhaltlosen Pluralismus und einer Demokratie der vielen Stimmen ist hierzulande die Herrschaft eines obrigkeitlich vorgekauten Kanons der politischen Korrektheit getreten. Die Litanei wird unkritisch nachgebetet von einer Staffage an politischen Konsumenten, die seit langem schon in einen abgestumpften Zustand versetzt werden, indem ein Einheitsbrei ideologisch schick frisierter Nachrichten und „Informationen"“ an allen Ecken und Enden der „Bildungs“- und Medienwelt an sie verfüttert wird. So zu einer Einheitsmasse geformt konnte es nicht ausbleiben, dass die Deutschen wieder sehr intolerant geworden sind und sich Formen der Diskriminierung und hasserfüllten Verächtlichmachung zu eigen machen wie sie rassische Minderheiten, etwa die Schwarzen in den USA, zu ertragen hatten.

Es ist gang und gäbe heute, das Deutsche gewohnheitsmäßig und geradezu lustvoll Personen und Gruppen diskriminieren und auf hasserfüllte Weise verächtlich machen, die der Billigung durch den Kanon der politischen Korrektheit entbehren. (Im Stile der Diskriminierung der Schwarzen durch die Südstaatler, darf der Verein Eintracht Frankfurt unter landesweitem Zuspruch Angehörige und Unterstützer der legalen deutschen Partei AfD die Vereinszugehörigkeit verweigern. Es gibt tausende von ähnlichen Beispielen reinsten Rassismus gegen  oppositionelle/nicht politisch korrekte Kräfte in Deutschland.)

Zu den zahlreichen Opfern des neu erwachten deutschen Rassismus zählen der US-Präsident, seine Anhänger, selbst unterscheidungsfähige Menschen, die Vor- und Nachteile seiner Administration konstatieren, es aber wagen ihm auch gute Ideen und politische Maßnahmen zuzurechnen. Wie schon angedeutet,  die völlig legale Partei der AfD, ihre Mitglieder und Anhänger werden wie seinerzeit die schwarze Bevölkerung der Südstaaten dem ungeheurerlichsten Rassismus in Gestalt von Verleumdung und sozialer Ausgrenzung ausgesetzt. Menschen, die eine ordnungsgemäße Einwanderungspolitik und die Einhaltung der diesbezüglichen Gesetze fordern, werden als fremdenfeindliche Nazis, also als Typen, die Massenmord und andere Gräuel begehen, diffamiert. „Klimaleugnern“ wird der Tod gewünscht, während man an anderer Stelle daran arbeitet, sie zu kriminalisieren. Europäische Mitbürger werden an den Pranger gestellt als widerwärtig faul und gaunerhaft, etwa die den Brexit wagenden Engländer oder die Griechen. Stellen Sie sich mal vor schwarze Menschen würden solchen Anwürfen ausgesetzt – die Heuchler der regressiven Linken würden in hysterisches Geheul ausbrechen und in diesem Fall natürlich mit ihrem Protest recht haben. Für andere gilt dieser Schutz nicht.

Es ist inzwischen so weit verbreitet in Deutschland, dermaßen politisch korrekt, diejenigen, die nicht den Linkspol bevölkern, auf das demütigendste herabzusetzen und mit hasserfülltem Eifer verächtlich zu machen, dass die meisten Menschen längst schon ihre Antennen dafür verloren haben, dass sie den reinsten Rassismus an den verschiedensten Fronten praktizieren.

Der soziale Druck, der durch diese allgegenwärtige Leidenschaft für rassistische Beleidigungen  aufgebaut und durch das Land gepumpt wird, ist gewaltig. Es handelt sich um eine Art des sozialen Signalisierens und bedeutet: „Hey, ich bin ein guter Deutscher, ich denke auch wie ihr, habe die gleichen Gegner. Sind wir nicht geil?“

Was ich regelmäßig erlebe, wenn ich mich mit Freunden, Bekannten, selbst mit Geschäftspartnern treffe, ist dies: Ich komme ins Vergnügen einer Brandrede gegen das jüngste Opfer ihres Rassismus, z. B. die Ölindustrie. Und ich blicke in Augen, die strahlen wie von einer Offenbarung. Dabei habe ich nur die wiedergekäute Version des letzten Schubs an politisch korrekter Propaganda aus den staatstreuen Medien zu hören bekommen.

Doch niemand sagt: „Stop!“ Nur die „Nazis“ außerhalb des Linkspols.

Deutschland hat sich zu einem Laboratorium gewandelt, in dem man die Abtrift eines Landes in Richtung Totalitarismus unter Bedingungen weitgehender Freiheit (grundsätzliche Informationsfreiheit und legale Widerstandsmöglichkeiten) studieren kann, ebenso wie weit in die Zeit zurückreichende kulturelle Unterströmungen der toxischen Art, die allmählich wieder auftauchen.

In den 1920er und 1930er Jahren waren es die Väter, die unter den Fahnen totalitären Visionen (der marxistischen Sozialisten, der Kommunisten und der Nationalsozialisten) marschierten. In den 1960er Jahren tat es ihnen ihre Söhne gleich in ihren Demonstrationen für einen totalitären Kommunismus, bevor sie den "langen Marsch durch die Institutionen" antraten, um schließlich (als gut bezahlte Ministerialbeamte, die die Gesetze von den Augen der Öffentlichkeit abgeschirmt ausformulieren) an die Schalthebel der Macht zu gelangen.

Wie schon in der Weimarer Republik ist es der Demokratie nicht gelungen, in Deutschland Fuß zu fassen.

Was wir heute im „deutschen Laboratorium“ beobachten können, könnte sich gut und gerne dereinst als Probelauf für ein weiteres fürchterlich autoritäres Reich herausstellen. Die Menschen sind bereit dafür. Sehen wir mal, was geschehen wird, wenn dieser Riese auf tönernen Füßen – die EU – erst einmal kollabiert.

Hütet euch – die Deutschen sind ein sehr gefährliches Volk!



English text:

I urge my readers to get behind this demand. 

For racism is rampant in Germany. Over here unrestricted pluralism and many-voiced democracy has been replaced with a preordained canon of political correctness uncritically adopted by political consumers that have been dulled for a long time by an ubiquitous pabulum of ideologically streamlined news and "information" pieces. Having been clotted into a uniform mass, it is inevitable that Germans have grown highly intolerant, exercising the kind of discrimination and hateful disparaging that racial minorities like the blacks in America used to be exposed to.

It is a bit unfortunate that the term that describes this type of social suppression seems to imply its applicability only to ethnic groups of victims. Of course, the meaning of racism extends beyond races to virtually any kind of person or social unit or community.

Nowadays Germans discriminate against and hatefully disparage habitually and with relish persons and groups that are not sanctioned by their canon of political correctness. 

Counting among the many targets of German racism are the US-president, his supporters, even discerning people who see the good and the bad in him but dare ascribe good ideas and policies to him. Equally, Germany's perfectly legal political party — AfD — which has recently made it into parliament is subject to the most egregious racism, its members and supporters being slandered and ostracised like American blacks in the 1950s. People who call for an orderly immigration policy and the upholding of the law are being defamed as xenophobic Nazis. Global warming "deniers" are greeted with death wishes and subjected to efforts at criminalisation. Fellow Europeans are considered despicably lazy and crookish bastards, such as the brexiting English and the Greeks. Imagine blacks were the targets of the same kind of abuse.

It has become so common in Germany, so politically correct, to level the most abasing and vitriolic accusations against those outside the Left Pole that people just no longer understand that they are perpetrating racism along many fronts. The social pressure generated and transmitted by this ubiquitous passion for racist abuse is immense in Germany. It is a way of signalling I am a good boy, a good girl. What happens regularly when I meet with friends, acquaintances, even business partners, I am treated to a rant about the latest victim of discrimination, say the oil industry. And I meet eyes bright with revelation, when all I heard was the latest piece of political propaganda, say from the radio (told a million times before). Many of the racist memes of accusation by which Germans like to reassure each other of their desert of social respect are as lifeless as an insect trapped in amber, deriving their popularity not from truthfulness and accuracy but from longevity. Prejudices clogging the mind, readying it for hatred by blocking discernment and establishing disproportion in judgement. An occasional problem with an industry, by itself, if actually extant, representing a perfectly manageable cost vis-à-vis the enormous benefits contributed by the business is transformed into a lasting condemnation of the entire branch, the full force of which stigma being ever ready to be activated by the least impetus, further deepening and perpetuating an elephant of threat that really is a fly. in that way, the chemical industry is killing millions of people and the oil industry is pushing for the end of the world.  

Nobody says stop — except "the Nazis" outside of the Left Pole.

Germany has turned into a laboratory where you can study how a drift towards totalitarianism can emerge under conditions of freedom and how poisonous cultural undercurrents of long standing resurface. In the 1920s and 1930s, the fathers were marching through the streets in support of totalitarian visions (Marxist socialists, Communists, National Socialists), only for their sons to follow suit in the 1960s demonstrating for totalitarian communism, and after a "long march through the institutions" ending up in the corridors of power today. As during the Weimar Republic, democracy has yet again failed to take root in Germany.

If people, who live in a free country behave like that, how much more susceptible to totalitarian duress must those have been who lacked the unrestricted information (Internet) and possibility of opposition still existing in today's Germany.

What we are witnessing in our German laboratory could well turn out a test run for another terribly authoritarian Reich. The people are ready for it. Let's see what happens when that giant with feet of clay — the EU — collapses.

Beware — the Germans are a very dangerous people!

Fraudulent Diesel Ban Due to Political Control of Science

Unless the people make use of their ample opportunities to check the facts, consciously acting as citizens of a pluralistic democracy, rather than as political consumers. Image credit.

Video below only in German / Video unten nur auf deutsch

For an English context click here and here. Professor Köhler is debunking the fraudulent findings according to which claiming diesel engines are responsible for 6000 premature deaths every year in Germany.  You have got to be a very courageous person to tell the truth on these matters, including the fabrication by science in Germany of erroneous but politically correct results.

So far his conduct within the purview of the discipline in which he is an outstanding specialist (pneumology). Unaware of the fundamentals of the physics of CO2, unfortunately he mixes his genuine competence with his views as a political consumer, in which latter capacity he buys into the CO2 lie and demands draconian state interventions to redress the putative problem. The green-minded will walk away advertising that yet another scientist confirms CO2-induced global warming.

Available only in German: 

Leider muss man heute in Deutschland den Mut eines Widerstandskämpfers besitzen, um die Bevölkerung vor dem Betrug in Kenntnis setzen, der im großen Stil von der Politik erzwungen wird durch Unterwerfung des Wissenschaftsbetriebs unter vorgefasste politisch korrekte Befunde. Er weist nach, warum die betreffenden „Diesel-Befunde“ getürkt sind und bestätigt, dass nur noch wenige Institute wirklich unabhängige wissenschaftliche Forschung betreiben, was die Gebiete angeht, die von der Regierung politisch vorentschieden worden sind.

Leider vermengt Köhler sein Spezialwissen mit seiner Haltung als politischer Konsument. Er glaubt an die CO2-Lüge und leitet aus dieser Überzeugung drakonische Zwangsmaßnahmen ab. Aber wie gesagt, Köhler ist nicht vertraut mit der Physik des CO2. Er ist damit leichte Beute für die Grüngesinnten, die in ihm einen weiteren Wissenschafrtler zitieren werden, der an eine katastrophale globale menschengemachte Erderwärmung glaubt.

http://www.ardmediathek.de/radio/SWR1-Leute-Baden-W%C3%BCrttemberg-Videopodcas/Prof-Dieter-K%C3%B6hler-Lungenfacharzt/SWR1/Video-Podcast?bcastId=32266414&documentId=50896868

Reactionary Greens' Colonialism Rejected

Image credit

German summary below / deutsche Zusammenfassung unten

The greatest evil perpetrated by the green church is that it manages to make countless people firmly believe that the environments of the earth are in an apocalyptic state. Unless people begin to debunk green alarmism and discover that we live in the most environmentally friendly times ever with splendid prospects of still further advancement, the green-minded will keep on dominating the  attitude of the political consumer. Africans are beginning to see through the pack of green lies: 

Clean Coal Is The Way To Power Africa – And South African Academics Know How

It is a lie that the world is getting more polluted. In fact, it is getting cleaner than ever. Critically, countries that are industrialising now have access to advanced forms of pollution control. So moving billions out of dire poverty has become a cleaner proposition than ever before.

We have become better at keeping OUR environment clean and healthy. The opposite claim is false. 

The environment is ours, nobody else's. That is to say, in defining what a clean, healthy and otherwise acceptable environment is, the only admissible criteria are human needs. We must avoid categorical claims (demands ignoring the balance of costs and benefits), let alone fabricated dystopian narratives and make place for sensible trade offs. 

Thus, the rate at which poor countries industrialise, grow richer and face forms of pollution unknown before may be best dealt with by a keen and sober assessment of the attendant trade offs, cutting out green stereotypes and the associated maximalist preconceptions. 

Perhaps pollution increases relative to developments in richer countries. But industrial advancement is likely to reduce pollution compared to prior levels making for a substantial relative gain. Also, the cost of additional pollution may be lower than the benefits gained from enhanced industrialisation. 

Nothing is more powerful in reducing pollution or other negative environment effects than industrial capability and its offspring: wealth. In other words: whatever additional pollution may be incurred on the way toward industrial prowess, it will add up to an advancement over previous stages, representing an indispensable historical condition for greater mastery of the environment.

The knee jerk hysteria that the green-minded elicit at the mentioning of general trigger words ("coal powered plants", "industrialisation", "pollution" etc) and the parallel habit of ignoring the facts and details of real cases is one of the worst hallmarks of the regressive left and  its reactionary greenism.

Once environmentalism has mutated into a religion it loses its connection with man and nature.

Masticated and spoon-fed by demagogues, the environmentalism of the green-minded becomes vicarious and hypocritical, out of touch with reality and based on an inward looking mythology, . They live in a museum of their own prejudices. They decided that coal is evil 40 years ago, built the "insight" into their mythology and see no need to ever reappraise the complex and dynamic matter. Put differently: they show no concern for the real relationship between man (his capabilities, technologies and needs) and nature. They are hopelessly stuck in the past courtesy of a rigid set of conceits, and they expect others as well to remain behind the times.

Turning the relationship of man and nature into the subject of a cheap feel-good narrative is not a judicious course even for the rich who can afford regression. For the poor still not wealthy enough to afford gigantic costs of green phantasmagories are dramatically and tragically consequential.

Deutsche Zusammenfassung:

Das Perfide an der kulturellen Dominanz der Grüngesinnten in Ländern wie Deutschland besteht darin, dass es ihnen gelingt, Fakten und konkrete Details (des Verhältnisses von Mensch und Natur und damit ein sorgsames, wirklichkeitsnahes Umgehen mit dieser Lebensdimension) durch scheinbar zeitlose Vorurteile zu ersetzen. Hat man die Kohleindustrie einmal vor 40 Jahren verdammt, ist das Thema auf immer erledigt. Ein in Wahrheit komplexes und dynamisches Themengebiet ist einzementiert als ewig lebender Teufel in den Kreuzgängen grüner Dämonologie. Mit derartigen Tabuierungspraktiken wird ganz Deutschland in Schach gehalten, sodass die Menschen aufhören, auf dem Laufenden zu bleiben und Neues zu denken. Eine reaktionärere Haltung kann man sich kaum vorstellen. Während die Deutschen reich genug sind, in den von ihren grüngesinnten Medizinmännern verordneten Rückschritt zu investieren, beginnt sich Afrika gegen den grünen Kolonialismus zu wehren, der den Fortschritt auch auf dem schwarzen Kontinent verhindern will.

Erst wenn es den Deutschen gelingt, die grünen Weltuntergangslügen zu durchschauen und die durch sie verstellte Wahrheit zu würdigen, dass wir in der umweltfreundlichsten Ära aller Zeiten leben und gute Aussichten haben, diesen Trend noch weiter zu verbessern, erst dann ist das Land gefeit vor der nächsten mit Lügen bewehrten Öko-Sau, die die Grüngesinnten gewiss bald schon durchs Dorf treiben werden.

Two Views of Liberty

Image credit

English summary to be added soon.

Ich habe in meinem Post Promethean Growth — Forgotten Deliverance („Prometheisches Wirtschaftswachstum – die vergessene Erlösung“ folgendes geschrieben:

Wir sprechen hier von einem Kapitalismus, der durchtränkt ist von liberalen Werten, bald aber auch geprägt wird von der Erneuerung des Liberalismus durch eine sozialdemokratische Gesellschaftsphilosophie, die im modernen Staat das Potenzial erkennt, die Schwächen des Kapitalismus durch Sozial- und Konjunkturpolitik zu korrigieren.

Der Liberalismus war ursprünglich das politische Programm derer, die die Unterdrückung des Unternehmertums und anderer Formen (besonders im Bürgertum anzutreffender Bedürfnisse) freier persönlicher Entfaltung propagierten. In Frankreich zum Beispiel bildeten das Bürgertum und das entstehende Königtum lange Zeit eine in diesem Sinne liberale Front gegen die Aristokratie.

Später verengte sich der Liberalismus zur Plattform für die Interessenvertretung der unternehmerischen Klasse. Damit einher ging auch eine Verengung des Freiheitsbegriffs, der bis heute von radikalliberalen, libertären und anarcho-kapitalistischen Kräften verteidigt wird.

Nach der verengten Doktrin von der Freiheit stellt diese den höchsten unter allen Werten dar. Er ist gewissermaßen ein alles ordnendes Oberstes. Die Freiheit ist der dominierende Schlussstein in einer ihr untergeordneten hierarchischen Etagen-Architektur. Man kann durchaus von einer autoritären Freiheitsstruktur sprechen, denn gemäß dieser Sichtweise bestimmt die Freiheit, welcher Inhalt und welcher Platz in der Wertehierarchie anderen Idealen und Ansprüchen zukommt.

Noch anschaulicher kommt das autoritäre Modell von der Freiheit als dem höchsten Wert im Bild eines Speichenrads zum Ausdruck: Im Zentrum liegt die Nabe – die Freiheit, meist verstanden als die Freiheit des Individuums. Von ihr gehen Speichen aus – andere Rechte und Forderungen an die Gemeinschaft –, die verankert sind in der Nabe, die den höchsten, den Leitwert abbildet, der seinerseits bestimmt, welche Eigenschaften und Grenzen allen anderen Werte – dargestellt durch die Speichen – zukommt.

Aus dieser hierarchisch-autoritären Freiheitsstruktur leitet der radikale Liberalismus Forderungen ab, die geeignet sind, die Interessen bestimmter Gesellschaftsgruppen – unter Ausblendung der Anliegen anderer Parteien – besonders zu betonen. Kennzeichnend für diesen selektiven Liberalismus ist die Neigung, den Einsatz staatlicher Zwangsgewalt weitgehend abzulehnen, zugleich aber extensive staatliche und im Prinzip willkürliche, weil partikularistische Eingriffe zu begrüßen, sofern sie  ihren eigenen Vorhaben dienlich sind. So ist – vielfach nicht zu unrecht – der Vorwurf erhoben worden, der Liberalismus sei an einen parteiischen, vielleicht kann man sogar sagen an einen Klassenstandpunkt gebunden. Deswegen ist er nicht dazu geeignet, das wahre Bild gesellschaftlicher Ansprüche und Bedürfnisse authentisch abzubilden.

Es ist die Sozialdemokratie, die schließlich den Liberalismus erneuert und somit als wichtiges Element des Gesellschaftsbildes unserer Zeit erhält. 

Nicht untypisch für die radikalliberale Neigung, die Demokratie herabzusetzen, verhöhnt Hayek den Begriff „Sozialdemokratie“ als hohl oder tautologisch – wie könne eine Demokratie nicht sozial sein, eine Demokratie sei doch notwendigerweise der Ausdruck sozialer Beziehungen. 

Tatsächlich macht die Sozialdemokratie ihrem Namen in substanzieller Weise Ehre, denn sie ist sozial, in dem Sinne, dass sie die – durchaus nicht einheitlichen, oft rivalisierenden – Anliegen aller sozialer Schichten zum Ausdruck gebracht sehen will, nicht nur die Sichtweise bestimmter Gruppen. Daraus folgt, dass sie gleichzeitig dezidiert demokratisch sein muss. Denn aus ihrem sozialen Anspruch ergibt sich, dass die Einbeziehung aller in ein Regime der Freiheit nicht darauf verzichten kann, jedem Bürger die Möglichkeit zu geben, am politischen Wettbewerb um die Regeln und Werte, die eine Gesellschaft beherrschen sollen, teilzunehmen.

Damit sind wir bei der wichtigsten Schlussfolgerung dieses Artikel angelangt.

Neben der Auffassung des älteren Liberalismus, bietet uns die sozialdemokratische Erneuerung des Liberalismus eine zweite Auffassung von Freiheit an, die entschieden nicht hierarchisch und keineswegs autoritär ist. 

Anders als das statische Bild einer Werte-Hierarchie, das uns der klassische Liberalismus hinterlassen hat, spiegelt die zum sozialdemokratisch erneuerten Liberalismus passende Metapher ein dynamisches Gebilde wieder. 

Wir müssen uns einen sich emsig bewegenden Schwarm vorstellen, eine ständig chargierende Punktwolke. Die in ihr enthaltene Elemente wirken unentwegt aufeinander ein und verändern dabei ihre relativen Stellungen zu einander.

Diese emergente Erscheinung, diese sich, wie ein Fischschwarm unentwegt neu formierende spontane Ordnung ist die Freiheit. 

(Hayek – und der klassische Liberalismus – verkennen, (1) dass die Freiheit selbst eine spontane Ordnung ist, (2) dass sie durch den freien Ausdruck der unterschiedlichen gesellschaftlichen Interessen entsteht und (3) dass es gerade nicht so ist, wie er annimmt, dass nämlich bestimmte von ihm erwünschte Institutionen und Regeln bereits in sich die Ergebnisse dessen tragen, was er sich unter einer spontanen Ordnung vorstellt. Es gibt keine prästabilisierte Ordnung, die den Gesetzen der freien Marktwirtschaft innewohnen. Stattdessen müssen wir durch bewusstes Handeln die Verantwortung für die Qualität der spontanen gesellschaftlichen Ordnung übernehmen, in der wir leben.)

Es gibt keinen Zentralpunkt der Freiheit, von dem alle anderen Werte und Ansprüche in ihre Bedeutung und Zulässigkeit abhängig sind. Vielmehr sind alle Punkte aufeinander bezogen. Veränderungen in einem Punkt haben Veränderungen in anderen Punkten zur Folge, sodass die Wolke eine neue Form annimmt.

In der sozialdemokratischen Ordnung der Freiheit sind alle sozialen Schichten am Prozess der Aushandlung des relativen Gewichts der die „Freiheitswolke“ ausmachenden Punkte durch Partizipation in einen wirksamen politischen Wettbewerb beteiligt.

Teil der Freiheit sind zum Beispiel die Rechte der Mieter, ein anderer Teil der Freiheit besteht aus den Rechten der Vermieter. Diese sind mit anderen Freiheitselementen verbunden: Arbeitsrecht, Vertragsrecht, Gemeinderecht, Bauordnungen und unzählige andere Vernetzungen von „Punkten“, die relevant für die Ausgestaltung der Freiheit sind.

Ein Freiheitsbegriff, der die Vielzahl und Unterschiedlichkeit der Standpunkte diverser gesellschaftlicher Gruppen anerkennt und sich für ihre offene Bekundung und ihren Ausgleich einsetzt, ist imstande, auch im Staat einen Teil des Gesamtprozesses zu erkennen, der die in einer Gesellschaft unweigerlich gegebenen unterschiedlichen Gruppeninteressen so aufeinander zu beziehen hilft, dass unnötiger Rivalitätsschäden vermieden und die Interessen aller bestmöglich berücksichtigt und gefördert werden.

Wir werden in späteren Posts sehen, dass die Freiheitsvorstellung des klassischen Liberalismus eingebaut ist in das Urmodell des zeitgenössischen Neoliberalismus – die klassische Ökonomik. Das Bild von der Gesellschaft, das die klassischen Ökonomen haben, wirkt auf ihre Ökonomie zurück. Und bald schon prägt die in der Klassik verankerte ökonomische Lehre das Bild, das wir uns von der Gesellschaft machen.

Die Grundvorstellung ist die von einer prästabiliserten Ordnung, einer Ordnung, die prinzipiell (als Idee vor-konstruiert) schon besteht und ohne weiteres zu erreichen ist, wenn bestimmte Verhaltensregeln eingehalten werden. In dieser Lesart ist kein Platz für Freiheit wie sie dem Menschen möglich ist. Freiheit im klassisch liberalen Sinne ist ein totes Ideal. Erst wenn die Rolle der Rivalität und Kontingenz im menschlichen Miteinander und dessen nichtdeterministische Ergebnisse als wesentliche Komponenten der Freiheit Berücksichtigung finden, erwacht die Freiheit zum Leben.

Siehe auch

The (Little Understood) Economics That Changed Politics in the Past 40 years 

(1) Neoliberal Economics and Its Rival
(2) Neoliberal Economics and Its Rival — Say's Law
(3) Neoliberal Economics and Its Rival — Effective Demand
The Bad Conscience of an Economist

Self-Interest and Greed

 

Image credit

Go here for a German variant of the below English post.

Hier geht es zu einer deutschen Variante des untenstehenden englischen Posts.

I have written this post in April 2012, at a time when I was still leaning strongly in the direction of libertarianism. However, there is little in it that I would retract or qualify.

⃟

While I consider this article by Dwight R. Lee a good read, I differ with the author's conclusion

that self-interest is not good or bad, but an unalterable fact of life.

I would argue that self-interest is good - and not bad - in that it is a fundamental part of human nature and as such a requirement not only for man's survival but also for his continuous improvement, materially and spiritually.

There are two aspects to my argument, the first, I have written about before. So I touch on it only briefly.

I.

Every human being is an individual, separate from every other individual, and must therefore perceive and cope with the world in a way unique to himself. Inevitably, he has concerns alone to himself. Man quite simply does not have the perspective of another person but only his, he does not live the life of another person but his life, and he does not have the needs of another person but his own needs. If he does not know how to heed his very own concerns he cannot but (a) damage himself seriously and ultimately mortally, and he will (b) lose the ability to improve himself and to make his best contribution to the improvement of his fellows.

The idea of freedom is essentially the idea of personal freedom, the need of which is based on the recognition of point (b) above.

[In the meantime, I have come to support a broader understanding of freedom. Personal freedom remains a central aspect of liberty, but it is part of a network of interacting nodes representing other requirements of freedom — like the need for and the rules of scientific, economic, and political competition, all of which modify the scope of personal freedom.]

The constructive and conducive aspects of self-interest are manifold, complex and absolutely indispensable for human survival and advancement. Unfortunately they are only too often swept aside by crudely equating the concern of the individual for himself with greed or other forms of objectionable misconduct. This habit appears to be a remnant of the times when the individual was constantly and  brutally bullied and terrorised by the tribal collective. Today, the ideological war on self-interest is part of the efforts to turn human beings into mere means for the ends of the powerful.

II.

The second aspect that is even more pervasively overlooked concerns the nature of human needs. I mention this aspect because it leads me to the conclusion that man must and ought to strive for ever growing wealth. If this desire for more wealth is crudely equated with greed (which is silly) then greed is morally desirable - as one might argue for rhetorical effect, while correctly speaking greed is bad, of course, and self-interest good in the above sense. In fact, what is bad about greed is that it represents an overdoing, a transgression of the right measure of something, an excess beyond the harmless or wholesome, whereas an excess of self-interest does not make conceptual sense as defined above, since it would imply a violation of self-interest by self-interest.

The crux: the way in which human beings adapt to their environment is by having and satisfying desires/needs. The greater the variety, variability and degree of differentiation of a specie's ability to have and satisfy needs/desires, the greater its ability to fit successfully with the wider environment. So the ability to constantly renew, extend and grow this ability is key to survival and advancement.

Now, what is wealth? Wealth consists of things and practices that enable man to satisfy his desires/needs. Hence, if an open-ended development of desires is an anthropological sine qua non and the key to continuous successful adaptation to a changing and changed environment, then incessantly growing wealth is just as important.

If man's ability to adapt to and advance in his environment is damaged and curtailed, he suffers impoverishment (relative to the unhampered presence of this ability), even to a degree that may well lead to stark poverty, misery, and death.

Truncating, inhibiting or fully precluding man's ability to develop and satisfy ever more desires/needs and hence to build up more and more wealth is quite simply inhumane. Not to mention that resource-intensive ambitions like comprehensive environmental protection cannot be achieved unless a high level of wealth is achieved and maintained.