Link to Animated Introduction to the Philosophy of Liberty

The above link is a pretty neat little overview of the Philosophy of Liberty. So those who have ever had an interest in what my political views are, watch this clip.

This is one of my favorite quotes.

“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.” -Theodore Roosevelt

This was delivered to Sorbonne Paris April 23, 1910. Another portion of the speech is aimed specifically at cynics.

“Let the man of learning, the man of lettered leisure, beware of that queer and cheap temptation to pose to himself and to others as a cynic, as the man who has outgrown emotions and beliefs, the man to whom good and evil are as one. The poorest way to face life is to face it with a sneer. There are many men who feel a kind of twister pride in cynicism; there are many who confine themselves to criticism of the way others do what they themselves dare not even attempt.”

And on education and the moral makeup of a man, “We must ever remember that no keenness and subtleness of intellect, no polish, no cleverness, in any way make up for the lack of the great solid qualities. Self restraint, self mastery, common sense, the power of accepting individual responsibility and yet of acting in conjunction with others, courage and resolution – these are the qualities which mark a masterful people.”

This quote is highly relative to the last post and Jason’s comment, “Much of the discussion about socialism and individualism is entirely pointless, because of the failure to agree on terminology. It is not good to be a slave of names. I am a strong individualist by personal habit, inheritance, and conviction; but it is a mere matter of common sense to recognize that the State, the community, the citizens acting together, can do a number of things better than if they were left to individual action.” Although I would add that citizens acting together and action by the State are two completely different methods to organize action, and the benefits and costs of each should be further discussed, before hasty action is taken.

This is a great point on providing help to others, “Let us try to level up, but let us beware of the evil of leveling down. If a man stumbles, it is a good thing to help him to his feet. Every one of us needs a helping hand now and then. But if a man lies down, it is a waste of time to try and carry him; and it is a very bad thing for every one if we make men feel that the same reward will come to those who shirk their work and those who do it.”

Click here to read the whole speech.

The speech includes some great points that are relative to citizens of the US almost 100 years later.

Technorati Tags: Theodore Roosevelt, Sorbonne Paris, socialism, individualism

I want to congratulate Jason for providing a great response in his comment. It was obviously well thought out and exquisitely written.

I will attempt to respond to some of Jason’s comments, but encourage the reader to read his full comment before continuing with this entry to make sure you are understanding what is being said in context of the discussion.

Jason noted that, “In making such evaluations, it is important for you to recognize that even an unregulated market will never truly be “unregulated.” As we spoke about, the self-interest of market participants generates what we will call “private” market regulation.”

This to me is an essential understanding of this broader question. What do we want to govern our markets. I would rather the self-interest of men govern themselves, instead of the self-interest of bureaucrats to govern men. Bureaucrats have their own interest, and among them is to be re-elected, which takes more donations from wealthy lobbyist and temporary appeal to emotional issues of their constituents. I would rather a simple man make decisions for himself based on his own self-interest, than a ‘elected’ official making a decision for millions of people who all have diverse interests that do not align with the interests of the politician or with each other.

Furthermore on this issue, I see society as three branches. The market, the moral, and the political. Often times people confuse what the roles of these three branches should be. The market should allocate resources efficiently and effectively, the moral should instill moral values in all of us, and the political should be there for only things that neither the moral nor the market sphere can provide.

This fits into Jason’s comment that, “if private market regulation is effective, then government regulation is at best unnecessary.”

I fully agree with him, if the market is regulating things properly then government regulation is unnecessary and to further the thought, it can decrease efficiency of the market and create broader social harm.

Jason also noted that, “Since the one-size-fits-all approach isn’t appropriate, maybe we could offer businesses a choice between seeking the benefits and accepting the burdens of government regulation, or forgoing those benefits and avoiding those burdens by transacting in financial markets that are only privately regulated.”

This I also agree with, however would replace government regulation with market regulation. If a group of businesses want to form a trade organization that will better ‘regulate’ their actions than all the better. The best example of this is Underwriters Laboratories. This is a non-governmental organization that ‘regulates’ any and most all electronic devices to make sure people do not get shocked or killed. It’s to the electronic industry like the FDA is to the food and drug industry, minus the US government. This is an example of how companies can create an organization to monitor the actions of each other, and make sure that electronic equipment comply with the standards set by the society. These companies are transacting in a market that is only ‘[privately regulated' but it is being regulated efficiently and to the benefit of both producers and consumers (consumers don't get shocked producers don't get sued).

Jason's last comment is best described is misguided trust in our government. "Either way, there has to be regulations and the only way to make sure everyone is playing fair and competing on the same level is for the government to step in and create a standard across the board."

This assumes as one of its premises that the government can 1) know what it means to play fair and competing, 2) has the incentive to act on this knowledge, 3) can act on this knowledge without undue consequences, and 4) that whatever standard they create is optimal. I can not support any of these premises. 1) The only people to know what is fair are the parties that are entering into a contract (e.g. I offer to pay you $4 an hour to work and you agree as opposed to the government forcing us to agree to other terms) 2) see discussion about incentive above and see Wikipedia on Public Choice Theory 3) regulation of illegal drugs has resulted in us spending in 2000 40 billion a year and creating an organized crime industry of 400 billion a year there are tons of secondary consequences often never mentioned in the political debates 4) what is optimal is not precise neither will it ever be truly known this is why I look at the reasons behind something or the reason to act, rather than the result of that action. I could give money to the poor and think that I have helped someone, or the real result could of been to help him afford a gun to kill his whole family. But who knows maybe we are better off because he took his genes out of the pool. See understanding and judging the ends are harder than having a moral theory that simply supports the underlying reason to act. I think acting in ones self-interest is best since it is at least making that person happy( as long as this action doesn’t take away someone else right to act in their self-interest). This is irregardless of the ‘consequences’ or of what is optimal.

And know I am getting too far off target. So Jason Newmanthanks for posting your comment, and keep them coming. If anything we have fulfilled our duty to our self-interest, since we acted on what makes us happy. And I’ll buy you two beers.

Technorati Tags: market regulation, Underwriters Laboratories, Public Choice Theory, illegal drugs, organized crime, Jason Newman