SpaceX is set to make Elon Musk the first trillionaire. Here’s how to properly hate himThere are competing schools of thought about the accumulation of wealth, among them the anarchist claim that “property is theft” and the Gordon Gekko theory of greed as a star-spangled virtue.... The more compelling argument against billionaires has to do not with the ethical implications of the extreme inequality that they arguably promote, but with the adverse real-world consequences, which you don’t have to be a fire-breathing Marxist to acknowledge. There is plenty of evidence that extreme inequality produces inferior and even perverse social outcomes.... But if [Elon Musk is] a stain on capitalism, it’s not because of his wealth. It’s because he exemplifies the idea of government as the plaything of plutocrats who shamelessly bend public policy toward private advantage. It may be difficult to excite class warfare in a culture that worships wealth, but people like Mr. Musk make it a whole lot easier.
Those aren't useful instructions; the headline writer has misled us. It's just griping.
The good argument in favor of billionaires -- trillionaires, now -- is that one person can make a decision about how to deploy substantial capital in efficient ways that a government, a corporation, or a committee can never. Musk is building space rockets and tunneling equipment that could build a Mars colony because he wants to, not because of fiduciary duty or because spreadsheets suggest it is wise. We are lucky that the world's richest man loves Buck Rogers rather than Karl Marx.
Concentrations of political power are always pernicious, and wealth is one way that power can be concentrated. To say that we got lucky is to acknowledge that it could have gone the other way; indeed, it has done, as with several rich men who might be named.
If you were wanting the promised instruction on how to hate properly, however, here is Chesterton:
"Up on the old white road, brothers,
Up on the Roman walls!
For this is the night of the drawing of swords,
And the tainted tower of the heathen hordes
Leans to our hammers, fires and cords,
Leans a little and falls.
"Follow the star that lives and leaps,
Follow the sword that sings,
For we go gathering heathen men,
A terrible harvest, ten by ten,
As the wrath of the last red autumn—then
When Christ reaps down the kings.
"Follow a light that leaps and spins,
Follow the fire unfurled!
For riseth up against realm and rod,
A thing forgotten, a thing downtrod,
The last lost giant, even God,
Is risen against the world."
Roaring they went o'er the Roman wall,
And roaring up the lane,
Their torches tossed a ladder of fire,
Higher their hymn was heard and higher,
More sweet for hate and for heart's desire,
And up in the northern scrub and brier,
They fell upon the Dane.
There is also Kipling:
ReplyDeleteThe Beginnings
It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late
With long arrears to make good,
When the English began to hate.
They were not easily moved,
They were icy-willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the English began to hate.
Their voices were even and low,
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show,
When the English began to hate.
It was not preached to the crowd,
It was not taught by the State.
No man spoke it aloud,
When the English began to hate.
It was not suddenly bred,
It will not swiftly abate,
Through the chill years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the English began to hate.
"The good argument in favor of billionaires -- trillionaires, now -- is that one person can make a decision about how to deploy substantial capital in efficient ways that a government, a corporation, or a committee can never"..yes. Also this:
ReplyDeletehttps://x.com/brivael/status/2065505394500481180
I have yet to understand how true anarchists can claim that private property is theft. Anarcho-Marxists, yes, although that designation is technically a contradiction in terms. Anarcho-syndicalists, perhaps, if they focus on the collective as a self-governing entity opposing the larger state and/or society. Plain "anarchists?" No.
ReplyDeleteLittleRed1
No, the anarchists were always socialists and opposed capitalism and largely opposed private property from early stages of the movement, before Marx and Engels published their manifesto. Proudhon and the mutualists were early advocates of limited private property (the worker should own his own tools, workshop, fields for crops, etc.), but they were abandoned and most anarchists were communalists by the mid-19th century. The anarchists were kicked out of the socialist movement in the Second International in 1891, but mostly remained aligned with it anyway.
ReplyDeleteMost anarchists seem to see anarcho-capitalists the same way Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians view Mormons.
As for the phrase "private property is theft," it was a mutualist maxim that was followed by "private property is liberty." The point is this: If it comes from exploitation of the workers (i.e., capitalism or feudalism, etc.), it's theft, but if it is the worker owning his own tools and workshop or agricultural fields, it is liberty. I think the second part is commonly dropped because anarchists were / are mostly communalists.
Correction: I meant collectivist, not communalist, in the above.
DeleteIt's a strangely incoherent thing to say. Property can't be 'theft' except in the context of, well, property rights; otherwise there's nothing to steal.
ReplyDeleteTo some degree I think there's an important distinction between those who view property as pre-political, and those who view it as something that falls out of a system of laws and courts, contract enforcement and titles being issued. If you imagine shipwrecked people on an island, and one of them seizing control of the only fresh water supply and declaring it his 'private property,' you can see the point: he is in a sense using this claim to seize for himself what everyone needs access to equally. Yet if it's not an island but a territorial government on a frontier, well, the guy who staked his claim there gets the water rights. If you want water, you have to bargain with him. He's not stealing from you; you're obligated to pay him somehow for what you want from him.
Yes, but I think that, first, the socialists were a late-18th century western European movement (or collection of movements) and they were concerned with solving the problems of their place and time, mainly the rise of industrialization and capitalism. I.e., not discovery.
DeleteAs for your spring example, maybe they would apply their use test. Even the mutualists who saw private property positively only saw the right to property as a use right: You owned the field as long as you were cultivating it; you owned your workshop as long as you were using it to produce things. If a farmer retired and stopped cultivating his farmland, he lost the right to it (though he would still own his house and the land it was on since he was still living in it).
So, maybe they would ask the spring owner if he was using all of that water. If not, then he wouldn't own it all and he would have to give others access to it.
I think even outside the socialist philosophy it would be fair to ask why being first gives you any rights to property. If you haven't produced it but merely found it, why should you control it?
Or if you didn’t even find it; like the Saudis, who just happened to be living atop oil reserves discovered by others. Sometimes it’s cheaper to buy access than to have to fight for it constantly, though there are then pragmatic limits: it’s not a right on that view, just a convenience.
DeleteI’f you must Hate
ReplyDeleteHate people who work to Screw the World Over
People like Victoria Nuland.
Tulsi:
Today, I’m releasing never before seen intelligence revealing new evidence of past US government funding for more than 120 biolabs in over 30 countries, including Ukraine.
In support of President Trump‘s Executive Order to end federal funding of dangerous gain of function ld, and increase transparency and accountability, ODNI will continue working with partners across the Administration to identify where these labs are, what pathogens they contain, and what “research” is being conducted.
https://x.com/DNIGabbard/status/2065440568423944607
——————————————————————
Next Video:
Senator Rubio Questions Undersecretary Nuland Over Biolabs in Ukraine During her testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations committee about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland answers a question from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) about whether or not Ukraine has chemical or biological weapons. She replies, "Ukraine has biological research facilities, which, in fact, we are now quite concerned...Russian forces may be seeking to gain control of." She then refutes allegations from Russia that Ukrainians are plotting to use biological weapons, and says that if such an attack happens in Ukraine, "there is no doubt in my mind" it would be caused by Russian forces
Russia was right all along in their justification of the War
I note that multi-millionaire Jimmy Kimmel is jealous of Elon's money. Resentful of someone richer than you, Jimmy?
ReplyDeleteGringo