In chapter 8 of The Constitution of Liberty, Friedrich Hayek defends the idea of some people inheriting vast sums of money for the good of society as a whole. You see, we proles can’t handle “the propagation of new ideas in politics, morals, and religion” ourselves. We need people “who can back their beliefs financially” to do that sort of thing. Of course, not all of the idle rich will take it upon themselves to instruct the lower orders:
It is undeniable that such a leisured group will produce a much larger proportion of bons vivant than of scholars ad public servants and that the former will shock the public conscience by their conspicuous waste. But such waste is everywhere the price of freedom; and it would be difficult to maintain that the standard by which the consumption of the idlest of the idle rich is judged wasteful and objectionable is really different than that by which the consumption of the American masses will be judged wasteful by the Egyptian fellaheen or the Chinese coolie.
And, so we see, Rich Kids Of Instagram is not a call to man the barricades and sharpen the guillotines, it’s simply the price we have to pay to be free. This kid’s got three bottles of Dom Perignon so that our world can be a better, freer place for all.
![anticapitalist:
bbcity:
libertydefender:
bbcity:
libertydefender:
A footnote taken from Austrian and Marxist Analysis by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (former Marxist).
“The Marxist theory of exploitation is nonsensical even if one were to absolve its proponents from having to prove the labor theory of value and, indeed, even if the labor theory of value were true. Even a generalized commodity exploitation theory provides no escape from the conclusion that the Marxist theory of exploitation is dead wrong.”
Sigh. As I said, an organizational form of work can only count as exploitative if a specific set of conditions hold. This is indeed the link between “the owner of labor services”, and “the owner of the originary factor of production.” So, again, it’s not that the exploitation arises between ->factor and output prices<- but that differential ownership of land or productive assets creates two complementary sets: an exploiting coalition and an exploited. Why? Because if you play around with different organizational forms of ownership, the only one that isn’t picked out by the conditions is the one predicated on workers’ self-management (a co-op, in common parlance).
The upshot is that if you sell something for more than you paid to have it produced, you’ve exploited. But that still begs the question. All of the rewording doesn’t change anything.
No… It’s not that at all. I’m starting to think you’ve only read wiki articles on the LTV? It counts as exploitative if and only if one coalition involved depends on the others’ not withdrawing with his/her per capita share.
Hoppe doesn’t reference the article I linked. He references earlier articles by Roemer (pre-90s). Roemer didn’t disappear after 1985…
[Snipped a whole bunch]
Wait, the guy’s using Hans-Herman Hoppe as his cite? Seriously? I thought libertarians tried to keep him hidden in the attic because it’s so easy to use him to make them look bad. Hoppe actually advocates for a neo-feudalist dystopia that us leftists claim libertarians want and they try to deny. Plus, the hatred for democracy, racism, homophobia, and advocacy of a “natural elite.” Some quotes:
There can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They-the advocates of alternative, non-family-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.
There can be no tolerance toward democrats … in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society.
In a covenant…among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one’s own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism.
What the countercultural libertarians failed to recognize, and what true libertarians cannot emphasize enough, is that the restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic increase in social “discrimination” and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the multicultural-egalitarian life style experiments so close to the heart of left libertarians. In other words, libertarians must be radical and uncompromising conservatives.
A member of the human race who is completely incapable of understanding the higher productivity of labor performed under a division of labor based on private property is not properly speaking a person… but falls instead into the same moral category as an animal – of either the harmless sort (to be domesticated and employed as a producer or consumer good, or to be enjoyed as a “free good”) or the wild and dangerous one (to be fought as a pest).
As one brief example, I referred to homosexuals as a group which, because they typically do not have children, tend to have a higher degree of time preference and are more present-oriented. I also noted – as have many other scholars – that J.M Keynes, whose economic theories were the subject of some upcoming lectures, had been a homosexual and that this might be useful to know when considering his short-run economic policy recommendation and his famous dictum “in the long run we are all dead.”
In my book Democracy, The God That Failed I not only defend the right to discrimination as implied in the right to private property, but I also emphasize the necessity of discrimination in maintaining a free society and explain its importance as a civilizing factor. In particular, the book also contains a few sentences about the importance, under clearly stated circumstances, of discriminating against communists, democrats, and habitual advocates of alternative, non-family centered lifestyles, including homosexuals.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyr6y19OxN1qljj1fo1_500.jpg)
