President Obama has detailed the vast range of harms that the sequester would bring. They are well-known. And they are not necessary. The president sees the sequester, if it happens, as an enormous self-inflicted wound, inflicted on America by a Republican-dominated House elected by Americans.
But pointing out Republican-caused harms to millions of people -- many of them Republicans -- does not sway the ultra-right. Why? Democratic pundits say that Republicans want to hurt the president, to show government doesn't work by making it not work, and to protect "special interests" from higher taxes. All true. But there is an additional and deeper reason. Ultra-conservatives believe that the sequester is moral, that it is the right thing to do....
They believe that Democracy gives them the liberty to seek their own self-interests by exercising personal responsibility, without having responsibility for anyone else or anyone else having responsibility for them. They take this as a matter of morality. They see the social responsibility to provide for the common good as an immoral imposition on their liberty.
Their moral sense requires that they do all they can to make the government fail in providing for the common good. Their idea of liberty is maximal personal responsibility, which they see as maximal privatization -- and profitization -- of all that we do for each other together, jointly as a unified nation.
They also believe that if people are hurt by government failure, it is their own fault for being "on the take" instead of providing for themselves. People who depend on public provisions should suffer. They should have rely on themselves alone -- learn personal responsibility, just as Romney said in his 47 percent speech. In the long run, they believe, the country will be better off if everyone has to depend on personal responsibility alone.Moreover, ultra-conservatives do not see all the ways in which they, and other ultra-conservatives, rely all day every day on what other Americans have supplied for them. They actually believe that they built it all by themselves.
So for them the sequester is not a "self-inflicted wound." It is justice. The sequester is not merely about protecting "special interests." It is about the good people who pursued their self-interest successfully, got rich, and have acted "morally" in avoiding taxes that pay for public provisions by the government....
They are not merely trying to harm their own constituents just to hurt the president politically. Yes, they think hurting the president politically is moral, and they believe that any constituents they are hurting need to become more personally responsible. They see the sequester as serving that purpose.
In short, the sequester is not just about money and political power for the Republicans in the House. It is mostly about what they see as the right direction for the country: maximal elimination of the public sphere.The Huffington Post
Why Ultra-Conservatives Like the Sequester
George Lakoff | Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley
Pretty good description of neoliberalism as an ideology built a moral foundation justifying the economics.
86 comments:
Sounds like libertarianism 101 to me....
RSP,
This from etymology dictionary:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=liber&searchmode=none
Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, "Devil's Dictionary," 1911]
From the same page:
Liberal: mid-14c., "generous," also, late 14c., "selfless; noble, nobly born; abundant," and, early 15c., in a bad sense "extravagant, unrestrained," from Old French liberal "befitting free men, noble, generous, willing, zealous" (12c.), from Latin liberalis "noble, gracious, munificent, generous," literally "of freedom, pertaining to or befitting a free man," from liber "free, unrestricted, unimpeded; unbridled, unchecked, licentious," from PIE *leudh-ero- (cf. Greek eleutheros "free")
So what we have here is a bunch of "conservative libertarians"... they seek to preserve the status quo of libertarianism which took over in earnest looks like in the early 1800s .... or even as far back as the switch over to metals with the end of nomisma use at the conclusion of the Pax Romana ushering into the west the lawless "gold standard mentality" that still reigns in the minds of most humans here.... D-A-R-K.
rsp,
Lakoff's first paragraphs on Obama and his attitudes are from la-la land.
But anyway, most of the ultra-conservatives Lakoff discusses are not thoroughgoing libertarians. For one thing, they are not happy about the deep military cuts. They support letting the sequester happen because they believe it will improve their bargaining position. A lot of them believe the impact will not be great, and that as a result the public will learn they can do without most of the things that were cut.
If there is anything I’ve come to realize in the past 4 years, it’s that there is far too much moralizing about economic behavior and far too little science involved. I recently had a discussion with a cousin of mine that boiled down to his view that EVERYONE (governments and businesses too) should save more and pay down their debts – it was the moral thing to do! I told him the road to hell was paved with good intentions – damn the facts of accounting we all need to save more – ugh!
Justice? The so-called "private" banking system allows the so-called "credit worthy" to steal the purchasing power of everyone else. Where is the justice in that?
And what allows the banking system to steal if not enormous government privileges such as the Fed and government deposit insurance?
Libertarians are the liberals. The term was hijacked by dishonest (as opposed to the other kind) "progressives".
I'm just proposing a prohibition on fraud and the initiation of force. If you want to live in a commune and share all of your possessions and money, that's up to you. If you want to live in nudist free-sex colony, that's up to you. If you want to live as an ascetic monk, that's up to you.
All you people can do is distort distort distort. Your continuous lies, distortions and obfuscations demonstrate that you are losing the argument.
I'm just proposing a prohibition on fraud and the initiation of force. Bob R
What about restitution for previous fraud and theft under color of law, huh? Shall all government except that which protects the current unjust status quo now be abolished? That's rather too convenient for the crooks, isn't it?
I love the insightful analysis. Libertarianism is simultaneously:
a. A return to 1880; AND
b. Something that has never before existed and is utterly Utopian (see "Lord Keynes").
Just brilliant.
"If you want to live in "
Bob, you voluntarily choose to live in the US.
You're the sort of person who voluntarily joins a club, and then endlessly moans about the existence of club rules because club rules are "aggression".
Bob, why dont you move to Greece?
Hello there,
I have really enjoyed reading through your blog. I think you have some real quality content here along with some very informative and interesting posts. I think it would be worth sharing with more people and I believe I could help to get you new readers if you are interested.
I am looking for passionate writers to join our community of bloggers and I was wondering whether you would consider sharing your posts on Glipho and become a member?
It might be a good idea to give your writing and your blog more exposure while having fun and meeting fellow writers.
Please check us out at glipho.com and drop me a line at hubert@glipho.com for any questions.
Best!
Hubert
Dan,
"military"
Many of our current warriors are led to believe their mission is to "protect our freedom" type thing... rather than protect us from harm..
There is that famous courtroom speech by the Jack Nicholson Marine Officer character in the "A Few Good Men" motion picture... so our warriors are not immune to libertarianism..
rsp,
Hubert,
Thanks but we're ok here for now at MNE....
suggest try b.roddis@rothbardville.com though... they might be looking for some new ideas over there....
(Just kidding Bob-O! ;)
Bob, why dont you move to Greece?
What an utterly stupid question. Greece is presently involved in taxing its poor citizens to death in order to pay back bonds held by elitist banksters.
Accusing me of Euro-style "austerity" is just another win for me.
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/in-greece-crony-capitalists-will.html
Chomsky on Libertarianism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ
Until I heard Chomsky's little tantrum there, I had a mildly favorable view of him based upon his anti-war views.
"If terms have no meaning". Hmmmm. What an amazing way to end the little tirade because all through the 5 minutes I was thinking of how Chomsky's tirade was based upon a total destruction of the meaning of plain language and terms.
Third world and other poor people DO NOT have the protections for their bodies and possessions against fraud and/or the initiation of force by governments or the secret police. The essence of libertarianism is to provide poor and powerless people with the same protections for their possession and bodies as are enjoyed by the rich and the elite. The fact that the rich have always grabbed the levers of power is no argument against a proposal that says let's get rid of those levers of power; let's meticulously put a stop to such abuses. What a pathetic show of nothing by Chomsky.
And, of course, Chomsky is very rich, worth at least $2 million. What a jerk. Thanks for opening my eyes.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6222
Sept,
Who is/was the klanboy Wilson?
Rsp
Who is/was the klanboy Wilson?
That great progressive racist president Woodrow Wilson who brought us the Fed and the US in WWI. And racial segregation of the government.
http://mises.org/daily/2543
According to septeus7, the initiation of force is the same as a meticulous prohibition on the initiation of force. It's just amazing.
So Bobby,
Speaking of "initiation of force", what about the case where someone claims for himself a piece of land that was up to then part of the commons. Does he then have the right to use violence to enforce his claim wrt trespassers? Or would he then be an "initiator of violence"?
If people have a legitimate joint ownership of some property, aggressors are prohibited from stealing their property.
There's really no secret plan here and this isn't that complicated.
F Beard:
I'm not opposed to restitution for past wrongful government takings of land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipperwash_Crisis
What if banks steal the "common" purchasing power of the population? Is the population then not entitled to restitution or should that unjust status quo stand?
"The essence of libertarianism is to provide poor and powerless people with the same protections"
That's hilarious.
The essense of Rothbard's "libertarianism" is that inferior poor people should be free to be inferior and poor, and superior rich people should be free to be superior and rich, and government should never get in the way of this natural order of things, no matter how poor the inferior poor people get or how rich the rich superior people get.
Of course, for Rothbard the words "poor" and "inferior" were also synonymous with the word "black"...
The thing that really upset Rothbard the most, that got him really angry to the point of tears, was the terrible injustice of "purchasing power" being distributed from superior rich people to inferior poor (especially black) people, when it was only natural and just that it should always be the other way round.
He really could not stand that. It was, in his eyes, a complete perversion of the natural order of things and "looting" of the most immoral kind.
No, Bobby. Previous injustice in the not so distant past leaves many blacks at a disadvantage. Ever hear of "redlining", for example?
These days, the primary reason blacks are at a disadvantage is because they went to government schools and have been set upon by government drug warriors. I vote that government officials individually provide restitution to victimized blacks.
Bob, I've bothered to read some of Rothbard's drivel and he was beyond doubt a repugnant little man with very racist views.
He detested democratic government precisely because it attempted to provide basic things to what he considered to be "inferior" people - such as education, healthcare, food, and shelter, for example.
In his mind "inferior" people simply have no right to such things.
Disagreeing with Rothbard's grotesque views does not make me a racist, even in the upside-down world of Bob Knobbis.
These days, the primary reason blacks are at a disadvantage is because they went to government schools and have been set upon by government drug warriors. I vote that government officials individually provide restitution to victimized blacks.
More delusional than usual.
However, Bob, I do agree that people should be protected from fraud and the initiation of force.
bob, that was not a stupid question, you dont like our monetary system, so why not go to greece. how about samalia then?
Personally, I find these petty little quarrels between libertarian Bob Roddis and MMT proponents to be petty and mean-spirited and infantile. Why not simply be logical and state principles? In the last analysis these are going to depend on your deeply-held values and your ideas regarding the real and the purpose of life. This is the level of an interesting discussion and not this incessant trivial nit-picking. At least at that level the exchange could prove mutually beneficial, since we may assume both parties are decent people, basically benevolent, and lovers of truth rather than of their tastes, desires, and biases.
Bob,
Let's say a human is born. A baby. With nothing in this world of his/her own.
How does that human then grow up to obtain private property? When they start out with NOTHING?
rsp,
(ps and btw, they eventually also leave with NOTHING)
Kevin,
The mean spirited comments stem from doing the same dance over and over and over again. People get frustrated with each other because they feel the otherside is ignoring their 'fundamental' point.
Sometimes I wonder why Bob continues to comment here. The battle of ideas is a good thing. That's how we get closer to truth. But I'd have figured he would've given up on us long ago. Bob, have you converted anyone yet?
MattFranko,
Original Sin of course! :) [theft of the commons]
Bob dodged this the last time I brought it up to him. Whether or not private property is beneficial for society is besides the point. The FACT that at conception land is not owned, and in order for it to be owned someone must force it to no be others, it's a beautiful irony that Austrians cannot escape. Their "nonaggression" principle via protection of private property is born out of Original Sin.
Personally, I find these petty little quarrels between libertarian Bob Roddis and MMT proponents to be petty and mean-spirited and infantile. Why not simply be logical and state principles? In the last analysis these are going to depend on your deeply-held values and your ideas regarding the real and the purpose of life. This is the level of an interesting discussion and not this incessant trivial nit-picking. At least at that level the exchange could prove mutually beneficial, since we may assume both parties are decent people, basically benevolent, and lovers of truth rather than of their tastes, desires, and biases.
Right, it basically comes down to different worldviews rather than differences in a single worldview.
Discussion generally presumes that participants agree on a worldview as representational of reality. When partipants in a debate think that construct their model of reality differently then there will be foundational differences that are unresolvable for lack of agreement about criteria.
This is a fundamental problem in political discourse. Notice how often GOP spokespeople assert that they are representing the real American and real Americans, implying that the opposition is comprised of people who are not "real Americans." On the other hand, liberal question the humanity of those on the right that they views as "extremists" and "nut jobs." This is indicative of different worldviews.
One could perhaps label the difference between the worldviews as between freedom and fairness.
(continued)
Then there are the Mises-Rothbard Libertarians, and the Rand Objectivists, and the Friedman neoliberals. Mises, Rothbard, Rand, and Friedman were philosophers that propounded worldviews based on the norms and criteria that they assumed to be fundamental to "reality." Thus, these views are based not on economics but on worldviews from which the economics follows as well as the social and political theory that are bound up together.
John Maynard Keynes was not a philosopher in anywhere near the same sense. He was operating in terms of a context he took as a given, namely, the social, political and economic dynamic of post-WWI Europe. He was a traditional conservative British gentleman and scholar, who had no intention of propounding a new worldview but rather a different methodology in political economy based on full employment. He was interested in preserving capitalism in an age when socialism was rising, and he viewed significant unemployment as socially and politically destabilizing. Keynes was not a bleeding-heart liberal pleading for the poor and disadvantaged. He wanted to maintain the privilege of his class against the rising tide of socialism in Europe. Much the same can be said for FDR in the US. They were both basically conservative politically although they are cast as liberal icons by history.
On the left, Marxism-Leninism had largely won the day at that time, with its worldview that rested on ontological, epistemological and ethical foundations that shaped the norms and criteria of the worldview.
Friedrich Hayek was a philosopher, however, and his Road to Serfdom pitted a rightist worldview against the prevailing leftist worldview of the time, Marxism-Leninism aka Communism.
The major issues arise from those on the right concluding that any thing that difference substantially from their position is socialism and the inevitable end state of socialism is totalitarian collectivism. This doesn't mean that those on the right are in agreement, however. The fault lines are clearly delineated by the different faction that line up behind Mises-Rothbard, Rand, and Friedman, and they often made these fault lines out to be yawning chasms.
The result is that discussions and debates among these positions is undecidable because what is at issue is not the facts but norms and criteria that determine how to collect and process data and to construe putative facts. So even the facts are often in dispute.
So arguing about such matters is generally fruitless and a waste of time, if it doesn't degenerate into name-calling. What is does do is elucidate the different worldviews and their foundations, and this is of value in understanding where other people are coming from. It reveals, for instance, where then might be agreement or compromise, and where postions are hardened.
" Notice how often GOP spokespeople assert that they are representing the real American and real Americans, implying that the opposition is comprised of people who are not "real Americans."
Hey Tom, last time I checked the GOP lost the last election LOL!
rsp,
JK,
"original sin": can you expand?
Who is the "sinner" in this scenario?
How do newborn humans eventually acquire property?
Under the Law of Moses, property was allotted to all (adult males I guess) according to God's law... so I get that approach...
How is it done today? Certainly not by God's law (not that I am advocating for that..)
Our govt authority (currently staffed by moron-type humans) does it today... what criteria do these morons use?
rsp,
(ps btw 'original sin' is a non-scriptural term...)
last time I checked the GOP lost the last election LOL!
Mitch McConnell apparently didn't get the message.
[O]ne thing Americans simply will not accept is another tax increase to replace spending reductions we already agreed to.
-- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, yesterday
He’s right, of course, since, by “Americans,” he means the roughly 278 Americans who comprise the House and Senate Republican caucuses.
As Greg Sargent points out this morning, a recent Pew poll suggests that about ¾ of the remainder of Americans--the ones who are not among the “we” who already agreed to tax rate increases on couples with incomes of more than $450,000 and individuals with incomes of more that $400,000--actually beg to differ with Sen. McConnell on that assessment of what the American people will ever accept.
So, obviously, McConnell doesn’t mean those American people. Even assuming that those American people are even Americans. Or even people. (No one’s polls corporate people, as far as I know, but I suspect that many of them would side with McConnell, so we’ll give him that. But that doesn’t meant that the Americans who were polled were people. They may be cyborgs. Or dogs.)
Beverly Mann at Angry Bear 2.28.13
MattF,
I'm using "Original Sin' in a very general way, not necesarily biblical.
The idea I'm trying to convey is that the core-fundamental tenant of Austrian economics is Non-Agression through protection of private property, but (!)… the very existence of private property can only have come about through aggression: "This land is mine, not yours" i.e. the estabishment of private property has it's 'origin' in aggression (also, see Marx's.. Primitive Accumulation).
Therefore, Austrian economics is born "out of" Original Sin. Make sense?
Maybe as a comparison it will make more sense:
Keynesians have no fundamental moral statement undergirding their perspective. They accept a degree of State-sponsored force and aggression. Consequently there is no irony. There is no contradiction.
Austrians, on the other hand, with the Non-Aggression principle as a moral foundation, coupled with Private Property being absolutely also fundamental, have a contradiction that they cannot escape. In order for an Austrian world to exist, there must be private property. But in order for there to be private property, there must have been Aggression initially in the establishment of private property. [theft of the commons]
Hence Austrian economics is born out of Original Sin :)
I would call it disregarding priors.
It's like starting a game of Monopoly™ with some players owing all the real estate and others none and saying that this is a fair game.
Of course, there are a lot of other things to criticize, too, but that is an obvious one, especially when the starting point of the game is not random but based on past behaviors that were not based on ownership arising from use, which could have some justification that many could agree upon.
For example, the notion of land "title" comes from titled feudal landlords, who received the title from their lord. The thirteen colonies started as either corporate or propriety colonies founding on grants or patents by the monarch (as REITs, so to speak) and later became chartered royal colonies.
And we know what happened to the the indigenous peoples that held the land in common.
Tom,
For sure.. "disregarding priors" is a fair critcism of Austrian economics.
But what I'm getting at his more fundamental. Even if there is "justification that many could agree upon," the fact remains that the institution of Private Property is by definition an intial act of Aggression, no?
"this land is mine, this land is not yours"
Who says?
That can only be established by 1) an individual it can seize and defend it BY FORCE, or 2) a group that can seice, defend, and enforce it BY FORCE.
Inherently, at the origin (in a very philosophical sense), there is no ownership until it becomes enFORCED.
'Whereas once I may rest my body on ANY spot of land…[after private property, or any derivation of it]…now I may not.'
Do you disagree?
I don't disagree about prior use providing for some justification of a right to exclusive use where common use would yield a "worse" result, whatever the definition of that might be agreed on. I don't see prior possession giving a right to possession.
Even in so-called primitive tribes there is a "right" established by use. But it is not an absolute right and it is limited to continued use that can be justified as necessarily exclusive.
These issues were generally settled culturally based on ritual (social "habit") and then rituals gradually transformed into institutions as rules were formalized.
Private property was not original and it did not emerge suddenly. It is an evolutionary development that unfolded in stages over long periods in different parts of the world due to different environmental circumstances. I don't think that there is a single story and certainly not an a priori narrative. This is an issue pertaining to anthropology, anthropological economics and sociology rather than economic theory.
Quote: "According to septeus7, the initiation of force is the same as a meticulous prohibition on the initiation of force. It's just amazing."
No. You are now lying about my position and you know it. You are committing an intellectual fraud deliberately.
So in Bob's there's no "initiation of force" in deliberate misattribution toward people Bob Roddis doesn't like as long Bob Roddis get his way or so he thinks.
Basic Morality isn't something Bob Roddis volunteered for so he doesn't care that he a lying fraud.
Bob knows my position is that a "meticulous prohibition" on "initiation of force" is impossible to define apriori as such a idea is a evolving cultural perception i.e. a dynamic subjective frame.
Bob seems to believe that every future human action is predefined according a some absolutist universal logic of the value of certain actions without referring to a subjective cultural/social framework.
Bob violating is violating his own logic in saying that the value of everything is subjective except for Bob Roddis' valuation of the "initiation of force" which is objectively real and without cultural bias unlike like us poor non Bob Roddis folks stuck with merely opinions and processes of deliberation ex post facto unlike the Great Minding Reading being that is Bob Roddis who can make universal apriori judgements without even hypotheticals.
See Bob Roddis' knowledge of praxeology is so great that he know that all possible hypotheticals that we poor non-Bob Roddis people could ever think of has already be pre-categorized into a "coercieve initiation of force" versus "a voluntary choice freer than a bear in the woods deciding where to shit" mode even through we haven't even thought of those hypothethicals.
The Austrian school doesn't only let you predict 30 out of the last 10 recessions and a 100 dollar hyperinflations out of zero, it it actually gives precognitive superpowers. It's superpowered economics that is never ever wrong about human behavior ever causes it uses the superduper science of praxeology and awesome subfields of made-up words like "Catallactics" that only special people like Bob can understand...causes it so super and stuff.
We should be truly honored to be in the presence of such greatness of the likes of Bob Roddis.
"It's like starting a game of Monopoly™ with some players owing all the real estate and others none and saying that this is a fair game."
Right LOL... good analogy Tom...
JK, see where you are coming from now....
rsp,
I'm am so happy to have induced such a torrent of hatred for the well known concept of private property.
See, MMT is not a "monetary theory" at all. It's Marxist-Leninism with a slightly longer leash for the peons.
Thanks to you all for coming out of the closet.
There ya go, Bob!… take a cheap shot at the messengers instead of responding to the content of the message. This comment by Septeus stood out to me as poignant:
"Bob...is violating his own logic in saying that the value of everything is subjective except for Bob Roddis' valuation of the "initiation of force" which is objectively real…"
And Bob, I doubt anyone hear hates private property.
Critizing the "origin' of private property does not mean I hate it. I think private property has served a very useful purpose. But will people ALWAYS need to have privately owned land? Maybe, Maybe not. In 300 years that won't be for me or you to decide.
People can always share and/or co-own large tracts of "private property" even if not contiguous and it will still be "private property" and non-owners should still be prohibited from initiating force against the land or the occupants. 65% of the population can agree to voluntarily share the very same checking account.
This is not complicated and there is no secret, nefarious agenda.
unlike your secret nazi agenda huh Bob.
No, Bob, it's that your side has no compelling foundation for your private property is sacred and inviolable belief.
It is an assumption that you have canonized as one of the key norms. along with personal liberty. in the worldview you take to be representative of reality. But it is one logical construct among many.
It is also one that has serious problems to boot, one of the most serious being that it has no historical precedent suggesting that it is even workable. There are a lot of reasons to think that it is unworkable, and some of them have been put forward here. But this has been argued elsewhere more deeply, so there is little point in repeating the criticisms here.
Average people understand how private property works in practice. They live it. And it doesn't cause problems. It's the violation of private property principles that cause problems.
If you guys want to base the sale to the masses of your inflationist schemes upon an implied or explicit evisceration of private property protections, go for it.
Is taxation theft? No.
Is inflation theft? No.
No need for relativistic arguments (Tom) or idiotic rhetoric (Bob).
Bob most people don't think that the fundamental norms are an inviolable right to personal liberty and private property, and that government needs to be eliminated other than for national defense and enforcing laws that related to preventing coercion regarding personal liberty and property rights. Even John Locke, from whom the idea of an inviolable right to personal liberty and private property as the basis of liberalism didn't go that far.
Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. Since governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments. Locke is thus also important for his defense of the right of revolution. Locke also defends the principle of majority rule and the separation of legislative and executive powers. In the Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke denied that coercion should be used to bring people to (what the ruler believes is) the true religion and also denied that churches should have any coercive power over their members.
John Locke - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The problem with John Locke's philosophy is that he spun it out of his head and therefore it has many issues. There is whole debate around Locke criticizing his assumptions and methodology.
Is taxation theft? No.
Is inflation theft? No.
There are reasonable argument that can be made for both if the a privileged groups is using the law it its favor and disadvantaging the less powerful. "Theft" is not only a legal terms, it is a moral one. I would say there is little doubt historically that many authoritarian governments run by and for the privileged class used taxation as a form of confiscation of wealth. Was that "theft." I think many moral philosophers would say so.
You're talking about a situation in which there is no equality before the law, no equality of rights.
There is a huge problem with your “democracy model”. Under my system, any plurality of people, even non-contiguous, can enter into a voluntary joint venture to share expenses, insure against disasters, provide for welfare payments etc. Your system is based upon a LACK OF VOLUNTARY COOPERATION such that your victorious plurality acquires the ability to use force to compel the Refusenicks to cooperate (otherwise, it would be my system). Your system amounts to granting some unknown plurality that controls the government essentially a carte blanche on the use of force against such Refusenicks. The world is full of major slaughters of such Refusenicks (or just members of the wrong ethnic group) resulting from such elections (see Iraq). A major purpose of my system is to preclude and make impossible such a possibility or outcome.
You're talking about a situation in which there is no equality before the law, no equality of rights.
y, do you think that there is equality before the law and equality of rights at the moment in the US?
If you are talking about me, Bob, it's not "my" system. It's the system we have at the moment. Like you, I would like to see it changed but differently. But I am not holding my breath for that. I decide back in the Sixties to ge with my own kind and live the kind of life we chose to create, and we did, with various ups and down. I also worked for general change incrementally through the system and there has been a great deal of progress in some areas and regression in others.
As I told Major Freedom, I applaud his commitment to cooperating in building and testing a Libertarian model. I did something similar with anarchistic models also based on liberty but included other basic values.
My point is that one doesn't have to wait until the system changes to live as one chooses. One just has to be creative enough to do it either along or with others of like mind.
There are always a lot of different experiments going on that one can plug into, too. If you can think of it, it's almost guaranteed some people are doing it somewhere or have done and shown it doesn't work so well. One just needs to turn ones attention in that direction.
"My point is that one doesn't have to wait until the system changes to live as one chooses. One just has to be creative enough to do it either along or with others of like mind".
Yes! Yes! Yes!
Regarding private property, here is a little from the Church, Aquinas, etc.
Gaudium et Spes: “God has intended the earth and all that it contains for the use of all people and all peoples. Hence justice, accompanied by charity, must so regulate the distribution of created goods that they are actually available to all in an equitable measure. […] Therefore, in using them everyone should consider legitimate possessions not only as their own but also as common property, in the sense that they should be able to profit not only themselves but other people as well.”
‘One should not consider one’s material possessions as one’s own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when other are in need.’ […] True, no one is commanded to distribute to others that which is required for one’s own needs and those of one’s household; nor even to give away what is reasonably required to keep up becomingly one’s condition in life. […] But when what necessity demands has been supplied and one’s standing fairly provided for, it becomes a duty to give to the needy out of what remains over.” Leo XIII--Rerum Novarum
The Church affirms that man has a right to own private property, and that men have a natural right to make use of material goods. Further, according to positive human law--as clearly distinct from natural law--men also have a right to private property – this is necessary for the good order of society and the proper care of the goods themselves,
Nonetheless, the right to private property is subordinate to the universal destination of all goods. That is, the right to private property cannot be extended to the point of depriving others of the basic material necessities of life. Every man has the right to the material necessities of life, but it is a serious injustice when he is deprived of these, while another has excess wealth. In such cases the man with excess wealth is deemed to be a thief, as in the case of the "rich fool" of the Gospel.
It is the individual's prudence--a fundamental virtue--that determines how much is needed for each individual, and not by the Church or by the State, although in cases of grave abuse the State has a right to intervene.
It is considered a mortal sin for a man to accumulate excess riches to himself while others in his proximity are poor.
Leaving wealth to heirs as part of "something for the future" is morally acceptable. However, to attempt to leave a vast fortune to heirs is certainly gravely sinful, when others lack basic necessities.
All human beings have the God-given natural right to make use of the earth to supply for his own necessities as well as those of his family. Thus, we have the right to the personal property by which we secure a means of satisfying our needs--needs, and not luxuries. However,whenever anyone is lacking in basic necessities (food, water, shelter, medical care) he has a right to whatever excess wealth is present in his community. Our excess food and money belongs the poor. It is no alms to give to the poor from our excess wealth, we only restore to them what had belonged to them by divine right. All men are brothers is basic Christianity.
All men have a right to maintain the necessities of their own existence – and this includes saving a little something for the future – to hoard any wealth beyond this, is to commit the sin of theft. It is always a sin and, when the injured party is a poor man, it is always mortal.
Continued:
Private property is not part of natural law because there is nothing on the land that naturally makes it belong to particular persons. Private property is part of positive or human law. Private ownership is compatible with but not demanded by Natural Law. Also, it is the obligation of the State to provide for and safeguard the legitimate possession of private property.
In situation of grave need, all things are common -- hence, the abjectly poor man has a right to the "private property" of the rich.
See further (aside from the Summa itself of Aquinas, and Aristotle's Politics):
http://www.hyoomik.com/aquinas/property.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/property/
The major problem facing mankind is and always has been assaultive behavior, not a "lack of aggregate demand" or a lack of stimulus in the economic arena. Once safe with their private property, people would be in a position to share their possessions however they like. It is IMPOSSIBLE to set up a regime of forced sharing that does not weaken the essential protections provided by private property. That is probably my most important point, and you constantly miss the significance of it.
Here, the Spaniards, who needed no artificial stimulus, engage in slaughter of Indians in Colombia in the 1500s.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bob_roddis/8525140770/in/photostream
Yes,Bob, we know that you are a Libertarian Propertarian, who assumes that observance of the natural rights of personal liberty and private property will solve the social, political and economic problems of humankind. This is a more extreme version of the view shared by those who are in the tradition of John Locke. It's one possibility among many.
It is opposed by those in that tradition who take a more moderate view, as well as by others who hew to a different view.
Two of the prominent views are more ancient natural law theories such as that of Aquinas to which Henry refers above, and anthropological and historically based theories Marx.
The point is that all these views are assumption-based, and assumptions are not hypotheses. They are stipulated.
There are all sorts of assumptions then made about these stipulations, e.g., that they are factual when they are neither facts or the outcome of arguments whose premises are factual.
This reveals that the assumptions involved may look factual, being cast as descriptive propositions but they function as norms, that is, as prescriptions or criteria. They are not fact-based but rather value-based.
So the argument boils down to disagreement over fundamental values.
Are values then completely relative. If there are no absolute criteria, then the answer is, yes.
But that doesn't mean that there are no relavant facts for assessing relative worth. For example, many would argue that humanity has accepted some as wiser than others, and therefore an idea of true values can be gleaned from what those who are more or less universally recognized and respected as wise have done and said that is relevant to questions of value.
Of course, this requires criteria for deciding who counts and wise, how to interpret what the wise meant, and so on. So it is turtles all the way down, unless one accepts a circular argument as a stopping point, or appeals to self-evidence.
So the debate rages unresolved, since it is unresolvable through perception or reason, and appeal to intuition is subjective and not logically compelling as a universal criterion.
Moreover, it is only possible to test hypotheses, not theories, and testing of individual hypotheses sometimes produces contradictory results.
Finally, since social system are complex adaptive systems with emergent possibilities, there are no definitive answers that can be known in advance concerning them.
Very true, and that is why people organize, enact laws, and create various agencies of enforcement for both laws and customs. This is part of the human effort to maintain order in the face of disordered passions. If all men were saints much or nearly all of this would be unnecessary. "Seek first the kingdom of God..." However, it is not so much as "once safe with their private property," which is a very particular case, the importance of which varies with the culture, but rather, once safe regarding their customs, their laws,their culture, their traditions, their very persons, and in short, the overall order of their society or community; it is exactly the same as with a human person--a disordered person tends towards a kind of dissolution or even personal catastrophe--"a house divided against itself will fall." The US and much of the modern world is an anomaly owing to its heterogeneousness. Relatively homogeneous cultures are less afflicted in this respect--Japan, Norway, and the like. Ancient or traditional cultures, and especially tribal cultures, tend towards unanimity.
Re: It is IMPOSSIBLE to set up a regime of forced sharing..."
This is why the Church refers to individual prudence and resorts to force only in the case of de facto gross injustice--again, the result of the disordered appetites of some people.
Re:Are values then completely relative. If there are no absolute criteria, then the answer is, yes.
Are values then completely relative. If there are no absolute criteria, then the answer is, yes.
The denial of absolutes is contradictory, since the affirmation makes itself the exception. There are intrisically valid values, which are like the "substance", which manifests in many possible forms. For example, truth is a kind of universal value. The fundamental virtues are a kind of universal human value: veracity, self-knowledge, and the humility that is its result, and nobleness or the capacity to put oneself in the place of the other and act magnanimously and thus with all the generosity possible in accordance with truth and justice. It is also true that these correspond to the universal intuition of mankind concerning the fundamental unity of creation--or universal manifestation--as being divine in origin, however variously this is expressed. There is no stable society that fundamentally values and orders itself in terms of hubris, arrogance, injustice, mendaciousness, meanness of spirit, and maliciousness of intent.
I studied philosophy initially under the Jesuits, so I think I have a grasp on the teaching of Aquinas, although it's been some time and there is a lot I have forgotten, no doubt. My remembrance is that Aquinas held there are absolutes and there is truth but humans cannot know this for certain based on reason alone (due to effects of original sin). Knowledge is in accordance of the mode of the knower. Humans are no longer naturally in the praeternatural state since Adam's fall. Faith is needed. Reason only shows faith to be rational rather than a leap into the irrational. Faith provides the absolute criterion.
"The major problem facing mankind is and always has been assaultive behavior"
When you are asked to pay tax that you owe, you are not being "assaulted".
"Aggregate demand" is a term which denotes the the total demand for final goods and services in the economy at a given time and price level.
You believe that in your magical imaginary barter world with no government there would magically always be sufficient demand and no economic problems, ever. You believe this because you are a fantasist and ideologue who has absolutely no interest in reality.
Tom, your reply is completely beside the point, and that you studied with Jesuits is of no interest to anyone but yourself.
Your statement that all values are relative amounts to digging a grave for the intelligence, and is indeed contradictory; and I might add that Aquinas was very far from being a rationalist.
In my youth I was a Neo-Thomist, following Maritain and Gilson, until I realized the error of my ways. :)
Fortunately or unfortunately, I have put that way and my memory may be cloudy on some of the details. But I still realize enough to know that like all philosophy it is founded on assumptions. And as theology it is founded on belief. No absolute criteria to be found.
In the end, Aquinas got it right, in my view, when after a mystical experience he is reputed to have said, All I have written is as chaff, i.e, the experience was the kernel.
As they say, the proof is in the pudding. But, then the question is, was he hallucinating? And so on.
These ultimate questions are undecidable for lack of absolute criteria and if someone thinks that there are absolute criteria then one mush show how this is true when there is not universal acceptance. How can a criterion be absolute if it is not compelling?
Even a logical criterion like the principle of non-contradiction simply reveals a form of life whose form of life conforms to it like as norm. But there is anthropological evidence of groups that don't observe it as norm.
For example, there is a tribe that believes that the center of the universe is marked by a pole in the center of the their circle of huts, and they are nomadic tribe that moves the center of the universe when they migrate. They don't understand why anthropologists think this is a problem.
BTW, I am not denying that there is ultimate "truth," just that no ultimate is provable using publicly available criteria that are absolute.
Gads, I'm glad you've got that all figured out, Tom.
"But I still realize enough to know that like all philosophy it is founded on assumptions [Except for this opinion of course]. And as theology it is founded on belief [no, it is founded on faith and the sufficient evidence of Revelation]. No absolute criteria to be found."[for you] "They have no excuse," however.
You clearly pertain to the tribe for whom the principle of non-contradiction is no problem. Anyway, what do idiots like Aquinas and his ilk know? Hickey has read them all, and has a "sufficient" knowledge of all of it.
You have your "experience" which is privately certain but not publically communicable. Kind of like the way I know, from experience, that I was once King Arthur. I just can't prove it to anyone. For you the certitude that of the lunatic that he was King Arthur is equivalent to my certitude that the lunatic is a lunatic. Unlike you, Aquinas had his experience, but didn't burn his books. Could it be that the one prepared him for the other? And that tribe with the pole in the center of the village, could it be that they have a symbolist mentality, of which you don't comprehend one iota? No, not Hickey. He knows, he knows, he knows!
"Finally, since social system are complex adaptive systems with emergent possibilities, there are no definitive answers that can be known in advance concerning them."
No hypothesizing here!
Many people think that they "know." In fact, this applies in some ways to just about everyone. In spite all of the protestations to the contrary by people of faith, faith is belief, not knowledge, regardless of how subjectively certain the conviction may be. One can believe otherwise, but that is a belief, and the subjective strength of the belief doesn't turn belief into knowledge.
"Finally, since social system are complex adaptive systems with emergent possibilities, there are no definitive answers that can be known in advance concerning them."
No hypothesizing here!
That hypothesis is well supported. No hypothese involving fact can have a probability of 1, but the evidence for complex adaptive systems (non-ergodic) as essentially different in behavior from complicated but non-complex (ergodic) systems is "strong," and the different logics are also understood.
Personally, I find you both glib and pedantic, not to say rather shallow, despite a veneer of esoterism; you rather remind me of Ken Wilber. The idea of "emergence" is as hypothetical as can be. As for the distinction faith and belief, you have no idea of the difference. But of course, ancient philosophers and sages were fools compared to the likes of today's "thinkers." There is a reason why it is said "the fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God,'" and why St. Paul wrote, "They have no excuse." There is a reason for belief in the transcendent, but you don't understand in depth or perhaps not at all. As Mary said at Cana, "They have no wine." There is no Scripture that does not praise faith as an essential aspect of the human, as distinct from the animal, soul (the Hindu Shraddha).
I am not knocking faith, John. Everyone is a person of faith in some sense. It is not possible to live without faith in the sense of trust, sanely anyway.
But generally faith is contrasted with knowledge, and knowledge with evidence.
"Then Jesus told him, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.'"
— Jn 20:29
It is true that in religion and spirituality, faith is considered a type of knowledge.
However, it is not in theory of knowledge aka epistemology.
"And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction,"
Hebrews 11:1
Young's Literal Translation
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."
Hebrews 11:3 YLT
The Greeks held that the universe was eternal not created. Aquinas held that there is no argument or evidence to contradict this. People of faith are informed by scripture that God created the universe and they accept it on faith as the word of God.
No one conversant with theory of knowledge or science is going to call that "knowledge."
Faith is not knowledge in the sense of having a foundation in evidence that can be tested based on publicly available criteria. Subjective convictions even when based on vivid inner experiences are not evidence of knowledge of anything other than the phenomenon experienced as a mental event. If someone is hallucinating, they are definitely experiencing what they are experiencing but their belief it is real is unfounded.
Mystical experience might be knowledge of a level of reality based on intuition, but there is no way to show this. Moreover, there is no criterion by which one could tell whether one is self-deluded.
Do I think that the mystics actually experienced something in addition to the mental modification they reported? That is my considered belief, which is based on what I take to be good reasons. But do I know? No.
Are there such criteria available in so-called higher states of consciousness? What would the evidence for this be. Most would probably agree that if there is some definitive correlation between the subjective and objective, such as knowing what is hidden from view conducted in a double-blind experiment. But most mystical reports are not subjected to such scrutiny, so the claims are questionable, and skeptics have many reasons for rejecting these claims if they go beyond the mental phenomena.
This is related to the realist issue in epistemology. If one claims to know the real then one must explain how one knows, unless one wishes to stick with naive realism and ignore its contradictions.
Aristotle and Aquinas appeal to intellectual intuition, but their accounts of the mechanism have not been convincing. I don't necessarily think that they were wrong about this, only that the kind of account they provide is insufficient. I don't think that Maritain improved on this account either with his analysis of the "intuition of being" in separative judgment. It doesn't overcome Hume's objections, for example. In fact, no one who has tried has succeeded in providing a compelling account thus far.
A more satisfactory account has not be forthcoming as yet. Perhaps it will be provided by the the emerging theory of quantum consciousness.
The concept of emergence can be traced to Aristotle's Metaphysics, Book H 1045a 8-10: "... the totality is not, as it were, a mere heap, but the whole is something besides the parts ...", i.e., the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Today , this is called synergy.
Emergence is not an assumption without foundation, but a hypothesis in different fields that has a strong foundation in evidence, e.g., in biology.
Wikipedia — Emergence
John: There is a reason for belief in the transcendent, but you don't understand in depth or perhaps not at all.
You say "belief in the transcendent" and seem to imply that that a belief based on having reasons is knowledge. Knowledge involving existence depends on evidence. A requirement of evidence is that it be publicly available so that it can be checked. But "transcendent" means not available to ordinary means of knowledge of ordinarily experienced events.
So the only evidence is mystical (transcendental) experience, and that this private unless one is in the company of mystics who are simultaneously aware of what is not publicly available to those in ordinary consciousness.
Then it is quite simple from those in the group to know who knows and who doesn't based on their shared apperceptions, just as it would be simple to know who in ordinary consciousness is blind or deaf in a group.
What "transcendent" means is ambiguous. Generally speaking it means exceeding the capacity of ordinary means of knowledge. But there are many types of non-ordinary experience reported, and there have been attempts to categorize them.
Ken Wilber's is one, and in my view it is chiefly based on intellectual understanding and reasoning rather than comprehensive experience of reality.
I place more credence in accounts by those whom I have reason to think are in a position to actually know, such as Meher Baba's account in God Speaks.
Tom, I think you might benefit from reading Frithjof Schuon's book, "Logic and Transcendence," as well as his essay "Self-knowledge and the Western Seeker," in his book "Language of the Self," as you don't seem to have fully grasped what is meant by intellectual intuition nor what is the purpose of a doctrine in relation to gnosis. No rational argument can furnish the reality of what lies above it. Reasoning plays only an ancillary role for such intelletion; the reasoning furnishes a support for the intuition, assuming the qualification of the subject, a most critical point. The intuition is the prius, the rational demonstration is merely its limited expression. There is a difference between the "manas" and the "buddhi", to put it in Hindu terms. You are very clever with notions, but your black-white distinction between "experience" and "reason" is one of your stumbling blocks. But let's end the discussion here, as an economics blog is hardly the place for this.
I am quite familiar with Schuon, Guenon, etc. and I regard them as editors rather than ones having reached perfection like many of those about whom they write.
There is testimony in perennial wisdom which if one hasn't experienced oneself one merely believe in. It is possible to understand the conceptual models every well and even give the appearance that one has the experience on which they claim to be based. Distinguishing the genuine from the bogus is very difficult and knowing where on the ladder of ascent another is is not possible other than for the perfect. That is the testimony of the perfect.
Meher Baba:
There cannot be anything hidden from the One who is everywhere present, for He is everywhere. And it naturally follows that when there cannot be anything hidden from this One He must also be All-Knowing, knowing everything.
The infinite-Knowing is 'seeing' everything at one and the same time, and seeing it NOW. It is that Knowledge which does not begin and does not end; which is indivisible and continuous, and to which nothing can be added and from which nothing can be subtracted.
It is that Knowledge which makes God at this moment know that which He knew when it occurred countless aeons ago, and makes Him know that which will occur countless aeons hence; that Knowledge which makes everything known to God simultaneously and NOW. It is the Knowledge of the Perfect Masters and the Avatar.
In terms simpler to you it means that which you as individuals know at this moment I knew aeons ago, and what you individuals in ages to come will be knowing at a particular moment, I know now.
Is this a true claim? Is it the claim of charlatan? Is the claim of one who is deluded? How would one not in that that state know? And how would one in that state be (objectively) sure of knowing? If that state is possible, who is or has realized it, and by what criterion is this assessed.
If there are many levels, gross, subtle, mental-causal, and infinite, how would one know for sure where where one is stationed oneself and where others may be stationed. We are talking criteria here.
Do you know anyone who has resolved these issues in a manner that is compelling for skeptics to accept based on absolute criteria?
I have my personal views about this, as do most other people in one way or another if they have thought deeply. By personal views are irrelevant in the epistemological debate about knowledge v. belief, knowledge v. opinion, and truth v. untruth.
Gnosis, jnana, vidya, al haqq, etc. mean Truth or Perfect Knowledge in perennial wisdom. The quote of Meher Baba above expresses it. Is this "intellectual intuition"? Rather it is said to be knowledge by being or by identity, that is by being Truth, which is identical with the religious conception of God.
Mystical literature is replete with reports of the ladder of ascent in terms of putative experience of the subtle world and the mental-causal world. Many of these experiences are intellectual and involve intuition as direct knowing but many also involve sensory experience that those in gross consciousness call "occult" or "extra-sensory." These are called states (planes) and stages (heavens), and "mansions." "In my Father's house there are many mansions." — Jn 14:2.
You are very clever with notions, but your black-white distinction between "experience" and "reason" is one of your stumbling blocks. But let's end the discussion here, as an economics blog is hardly the place for this.
I disagree that this is irrelevant to an economics blog, and so does Matt, judging from his many comments on the relevance of scripture to economics.
When we rule this kind of consideration out, we abandon the field to the Benthamites, who have a puny vision of human nature, human potential, and human motivation. As J. S. Mill said in reference to Bentham's utility calculus based on material satisfaction, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.” — Utilitarianism
Abraham Maslow also criticized the contemporary approach to utilitiy in his work on management. See Eupsychian Management, republished as Maslow on Management.
Homo economicus is a machine rather than a human person. The iron age (Plato), correlative with Kali Yuga in the Vedic tradition, is the age with the lowest level of collective consciousness. It has been called the machine age in which everything is approached mechanically rather than organically and where the spiritual factor is eliminated. Normative religion, characterized by dogma, ritual and observance, replaced spirituality as actualization of full human potential.
So I can't imagine anything more important to be discussing on an economics blog. Problems are generally not solvable on the level of the problem itself. The problem must be transcended by bringing in new knowledge. That knowledge can be on the same horizontal level, or on a vertical level above or below. Reactionary solutions look back and down, radical solutions look forward and upward.
This is why I am a radical.
If one would actually read the Bible, he would discover that God, though greater than all, does not know everything. God did not know, for instance, that Saul would prove a disappointment as king.
If one would actually read the Bible, he would discover that God, though greater than all, does not know everything. God did not know, for instance, that Saul would prove a disappointment as king.
Did God write the Bible. Did the prophet not know that God knows everything? Was the prophet writing about God anthropomorphically? Was the prophet using metaphors to communicate at the level of the people's understanding? Was the text of the Bible later redacted so that words were put in the mouth of the prophet?
Again, it all comes down to interpretation and criteria. Scholars spend their lives investigating and debating the issues, the first issue being arriving at an authentic text, which is not simple after millennia.
I want to conclude by saying that it is important to expand the frame of reference, which has become too collapsed. I think that there are two major reasons for the collapse.
First, spirituality as integrated human potential aimed at excellence got subsumed as normative religions, which then became a restrictive political force. The yoke of this was thrown off by political liberalism, and with it spirituality was dismissed as part of religion.
Secondly, science replaced ancient wisdom traditions at the same time that political liberalism was rising. Science was ratified by technology, and it became the dominant knowledge source. Since science is based on empirical criteria, empirical criteria became the standard for knowledge, resulting in materialistic reductionism.
The effect of these factors was a collective mindset and resulting ideology and worldview that was overly narrow in the sense of naturalistic and materialistic.
Opposing it were the holdovers of a bygone age. While maintaing momentum, the momentum was decreasing rather than increasing, and it was perceived as a drag.
However, the ancient wisdom continued to persist in other forms in that it is structured in consciousness and arises in new forms in every age.
Now we are seeing a clash between these two principal mindsets, the one hewing to the natural and material and the other emphasizing integral knowledge. For integral knowledge spirituality is not supernatural but natural, as the history of perennial wisdom shows. Vertical experience is characteristic of human knowledge, and it is experience-based rather than superstitious or received from authority.
How is this manifested in economics? According to the naturalistic, materialistic mechanical mindset, in the trifecta of growth, price stability, and employment, all factors are on the same footing, and in fact, employment is treated as less significant than the other factors, which it merely serves.
In the integrated mindset, this is an abomination, in that it makes human beings into means rather than ends in themselves, and commodities with a price rather than persons of incommensurable intrinsic worth.
Market fundamentalism is based on the former mindset and progressivism on the later mindset. However, the debate is framed in the ideology and worldview of the former.
These two views cannot co-exist in that they are antithetical. The former worldview leads to slavery in the name of freedom and the latter to actual freedom as the freedom to be and express the full potential of that being rather than to be a slave to material necessity that is provided only to the privileged few, and which they squander in triviality anyway.
Post a Comment