SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
7,178
edits
Changes
User:FOIA/Archive 5 (view source)
Revision as of 12:05, February 14, 2012
, 12:05, February 14, 2012no edit summary
{{cquote|[T]his Conceit of Levelling of Propriety... is so ridiculous and foolish an opinion, as no man of braines, reason or ingenuitie can be imagined such a sot as to maintaine such a principle, because it would, if practiced destroy not only any industry in the world, but raze the very foundation of generation, and of subsistence or being of one man by another. For as for industry and valour by which the societies of mankind are maintained and preserved, who will take the pains for that which when he hath gotten is not his own, but must be equally shared in, by every lazy, simple, dronish sot? Or who will fight for that, wherein he hath no other interest, but such as must be subject to the will and pleasure of another, yea of every coward and base low spirited fellow, that in his sitting still must share in common with a valiant man in all his brave and noble achievement? The ancient encouragement to men that were to defend their Countrie was this: that they were to hazard their persons for that which was their owne, to wit, their owne wives, their owne children, their owne Estates.}}
{{cquote|[T]his Conceit of Levelling of Propriety... is so ridiculous and foolish an opinion, as no man of braines, reason or ingenuitie can be imagined such a sot as to maintaine such a principle, because it would, if practiced destroy not only any industry in the world, but raze the very foundation of generation, and of subsistence or being of one man by another. For as for industry and valour by which the societies of mankind are maintained and preserved, who will take the pains for that which when he hath gotten is not his own, but must be equally shared in, by every lazy, simple, dronish sot? Or who will fight for that, wherein he hath no other interest, but such as must be subject to the will and pleasure of another, yea of every coward and base low spirited fellow, that in his sitting still must share in common with a valiant man in all his brave and noble achievement? The ancient encouragement to men that were to defend their Countrie was this: that they were to hazard their persons for that which was their owne, to wit, their owne wives, their owne children, their owne Estates.}}
::-John Lilburn, ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=WyNHAAAAcAAJ Apologetical Narration]'' (Amsterdam, 1652), pp. 68-69
::-John Lilburn, ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=WyNHAAAAcAAJ Apologetical Narration]'' (Amsterdam, 1652), pp. 68-69
{{cquote|We call capitalism or market economy that form of social cooperation which is based on private ownership of the means of production.
Socialism, communism, or planned economy, on the other hand, is the form of social cooperation which is based on public ownership of the means of production. The terms state capitalism and authoritarian economy have essentially the same meaning.
It is frequently asserted that a third form of social cooperation is feasible as a permanent form of economic organization, namely a system of private ownership of the means of production in which the government intervenes, by orders and prohibitions, in the exercise of ownership. This third system is called interventionism. All governments which do not openly profess socialism tend to be interventionist nowadays, and all political parties recommend at least some degree of interventionism.<ref><div style="font-size:80%">The orthodox Marxists, however, recommend interventionism in full recognition of the fact that it paralyzes and destroys the capitalistic market economy and, thus, in their opinion, leads to socialism. This was the argument advanced as long as a century ago by Friedrich Engels.</div></ref> It is claimed that this system of interventionism is as far from socialism as it is from capitalism, that as a third solution to the social problem it stands midway between the two systems, and that while retaining the advantages of both it avoids the disadvantages inherent in both. ...
Interventionism is not an economic system, that is, it is not a method which enables people to achieve their aims. It is merely a system of procedures which disturb and eventually destroy the market economy. It hampers production and impairs satisfaction of needs. It does not make people richer; it makes people poorer.
Concededly, the interventionist measures may give certain individuals or certain groups of individuals advantages at the expense of others. Minorities may obtain privileges which enrich them at the expense of their fellow citizens. But the majority, or the whole nation, stands only to lose by interventionism. ...
Not only do they divert production from the ways which lead to the best and most efficient satisfaction of the consumers’ demand; they cause waste of both capital and labor; they create permanent mass unemployment. They may bring about the artificial boom, but with it they bring in its wake a depression. They change the market economy into chaos.
Popular opinion ascribes all these evils to the capitalistic system. As a remedy for the undesirable effects of interventionism they ask for still more interventionism. They blame capitalism for the effects of the actions of governments which pursue an anti-capitalistic policy.}}
::-Ludwig Von Mises (Bettina Bien Greaves, ed.), ''[http://mises.org/etexts/mises/interventionism/interventionismtext.pdf Interventionism: an economic analysis]'' (Foundation for Economic Analysis, 1940), pp. 1, 77-78.
<references/>
{{cquote|When I was editor of ''The Journal of Law and Economics'', we published a whole series of studies of regulation and its effects. Almost all the studies--perhaps all the studies--suggested that the results of regulation had been bad, that the prices were higher, that the product was worse adapted to the needs of consumers, than it otherwise would have been. I was not willing to accept the view that all regulation was bound to produce these results. Therefore, what was my explanation for the results we had? I argued that the most probable explanation was that the government now operates on such a massive scale that it had reached the stage of what economists call negative marginal returns. Anything additional it does, it messes up. But that doesn't mean that if we reduce the size of government considerably, we wouldn't find then that there were some activities it did well. Until we reduce the size of government, we won't know what they are. ... I can't remember one that's good. Regulation of transport, regulation of agriculture-- agriculture is a, zoning is z. You know, you go from a to z, they are all bad. There were so many studies, and the result was quite universal: The effects were bad.}}
{{cquote|When I was editor of ''The Journal of Law and Economics'', we published a whole series of studies of regulation and its effects. Almost all the studies--perhaps all the studies--suggested that the results of regulation had been bad, that the prices were higher, that the product was worse adapted to the needs of consumers, than it otherwise would have been. I was not willing to accept the view that all regulation was bound to produce these results. Therefore, what was my explanation for the results we had? I argued that the most probable explanation was that the government now operates on such a massive scale that it had reached the stage of what economists call negative marginal returns. Anything additional it does, it messes up. But that doesn't mean that if we reduce the size of government considerably, we wouldn't find then that there were some activities it did well. Until we reduce the size of government, we won't know what they are. ... I can't remember one that's good. Regulation of transport, regulation of agriculture-- agriculture is a, zoning is z. You know, you go from a to z, they are all bad. There were so many studies, and the result was quite universal: The effects were bad.}}
::-Ronald Coase, quoted in Thomas W. Hazlitt, "[http://reason.com/archives/1997/01/01/looking-for-results/singlepage Looking for Results]," ''Reason'', January 1997
::-Ronald Coase, quoted in Thomas W. Hazlitt, "[http://reason.com/archives/1997/01/01/looking-for-results/singlepage Looking for Results]," ''Reason'', January 1997