beg the question, when are these things at odds with ethics?
Most problems with Greater Economics come from people who see Ceteris Paribus as something that they begrudgingly accept with the truth, as opposed to being the equivalent of peering into a parallel reality through smoked glass.
What a man wants is a wife, children, and bread to eat at dinnertime. He wants spiritual fulfillment and security. Indeed, a man has desires, but they serve only as means to these ends. Ambition, even change for his environment, are enveloped by this doctrine. A man would be willing to lay down his life for one of these and nothing else.
So therefore a man, before he is a consumer, is a laborer, because it is only by our labor do we ensure these things for ourselves. Yet, as it stands, a man makes decisions in the free market as a consumer. The capital-owner makes his decisions coldly in that they serve consumers before laborers. Yes indeed, they are the same, but in different worlds entirely. No man should want to lose his income for cheaper bread, as he will have no income left to spend on bread. Even opposite that, no man would choose bread for a shilling less at market, if he were to understand that it puts a hundred of his brothers without income.
A global economy is, in fact, the death of all things we treasure. Families are arbitrary clumps of rational actors, who are willing and able to split apart for employment opportunities anywhere in the world. Culture is downstream of consumption, not tradition. And of course, those with the most capital wield an axe.
A man born in a middle-class society can retire comfortably as a millionaire with minimal effort and ambition, should he be shrewd. A man born poor, too, can aspire to have his own children be of middle-class origins. Yet, to be a billionaire, we cannot say exclusively that such a thing is consumable. A man with several million dollars would find it difficult to spend it all on comforts, and it would only be with extravagance, waste, and opulence he could find fitting ways to indulge and spend it. But what do billionaires consume? Simple: influence.
Someone with billions of dollars does not own a billion-dollar home, nor can they easily or feasibly own a billion dollars worth of residence. They live beyond kings, for they are draped with its luxuries yet have no responsibilities to those to whom once possessed it. Yes, the sword of Damocles hangs over a king's head, but never a billionaire's head. So to what do they do with this? They spend it, and spend it on influence. They exert their will like the realized egoist over the world. Political campaigns, art centers, education initiatives, all of it – even if well-meaning – is their realization of their will, to which they hold no characteristic of responsibility outside of what is legal.
I ask you then, is this the most moral and efficient way to conduct society? Is the person with entrepreneurial, generational, or ambivalent spirit the most deserving to exert their will over the world?
I answer to this, no, it cannot be. Much less would a true constitutionalist or liberalist trust in a king, they trust in someone who holds more wealth than any king in history, in a world where everything is for sale, and whom cannot be usurped nor petitioned. This is ludicrous, and should they excuse it, they betray the ego of someone who paid for the privilege of their tireless defense.
Most problems with Greater Economics come from people who see Ceteris Paribus as something that they begrudgingly accept with the truth, as opposed to being the equivalent of peering into a parallel reality through smoked glass.
What a man wants is a wife, children, and bread to eat at dinnertime. He wants spiritual fulfillment and security. Indeed, a man has desires, but they serve only as means to these ends. Ambition, even change for his environment, are enveloped by this doctrine. A man would be willing to lay down his life for one of these and nothing else.
So therefore a man, before he is a consumer, is a laborer, because it is only by our labor do we ensure these things for ourselves. Yet, as it stands, a man makes decisions in the free market as a consumer. The capital-owner makes his decisions coldly in that they serve consumers before laborers. Yes indeed, they are the same, but in different worlds entirely. No man should want to lose his income for cheaper bread, as he will have no income left to spend on bread. Even opposite that, no man would choose bread for a shilling less at market, if he were to understand that it puts a hundred of his brothers without income.
A global economy is, in fact, the death of all things we treasure. Families are arbitrary clumps of rational actors, who are willing and able to split apart for employment opportunities anywhere in the world. Culture is downstream of consumption, not tradition. And of course, those with the most capital wield an axe.
A man born in a middle-class society can retire comfortably as a millionaire with minimal effort and ambition, should he be shrewd. A man born poor, too, can aspire to have his own children be of middle-class origins. Yet, to be a billionaire, we cannot say exclusively that such a thing is consumable. A man with several million dollars would find it difficult to spend it all on comforts, and it would only be with extravagance, waste, and opulence he could find fitting ways to indulge and spend it. But what do billionaires consume? Simple: influence.
Someone with billions of dollars does not own a billion-dollar home, nor can they easily or feasibly own a billion dollars worth of residence. They live beyond kings, for they are draped with its luxuries yet have no responsibilities to those to whom once possessed it. Yes, the sword of Damocles hangs over a king's head, but never a billionaire's head. So to what do they do with this? They spend it, and spend it on influence. They exert their will like the realized egoist over the world. Political campaigns, art centers, education initiatives, all of it – even if well-meaning – is their realization of their will, to which they hold no characteristic of responsibility outside of what is legal.
I ask you then, is this the most moral and efficient way to conduct society? Is the person with entrepreneurial, generational, or ambivalent spirit the most deserving to exert their will over the world?
I answer to this, no, it cannot be. Much less would a true constitutionalist or liberalist trust in a king, they trust in someone who holds more wealth than any king in history, in a world where everything is for sale, and whom cannot be usurped nor petitioned. This is ludicrous, and should they excuse it, they betray the ego of someone who paid for the privilege of their tireless defense.
Comments
Post a Comment