Anarcho-capitalism VS Objectivism

[Francisco Ferrer]

@Francisco Ferrer

The fact that Soviet Citizens were tortured, brutalized, enslaved, starved, murdered, and, perhaps worst of all, enjoyed a lower standard of living, tells us absolutely nothing about their subjective "well-being". Who knows, maybe they were masochistic and enjoyed having these things done to them? According to the theory of subjective value those preferences would not be any less valid than any other preferences.

Let's say that that the 7,000,000 people who died in Stalin's forced famine in the Ukraine died of their own free will. Why was it necessary for Stalin to order the Red Army to seal off the borders of the Ukraine? Do suicides normally hire armed guards to make sure they cut their wrists properly or swallow all of the poison or hang themselves with the right noose?

I think the subtext of your argument demonstrates the absurdity of the subjective theory of value perfectly. You want to argue that it is an objective fact that living in a communist country like the Soviet Union is less preferable than living in a capitalist, free-market society. However, the subjective theory of value does not permit one to conclude that one thing would be objectively preferable to anything else, for obvious reasons. So you've conveniently swept the issue under the rug by invoking OBJECTIVE factors such as torture, prison camps, mass murder, and standard of living.

I do not argue that it is an objective fact that the Soviet Union was a less preferable place to live than the United States. I argue that it is an objective fact that millions of inhabitants of that captive state risked their lives and all else they had to get out. I do not believe the U.S. ever had such a mass exodus problem.

[Brant Gaede]

@Francisco Ferrer

The fact that Soviet Citizens were tortured, brutalized, enslaved, starved, murdered, and, perhaps worst of all, enjoyed a lower standard of living, tells us absolutely nothing about their subjective "well-being". Who knows, maybe they were masochistic and enjoyed having these things done to them? According to the theory of subjective value those preferences would not be any less valid than any other preferences.

I think the subtext of your argument demonstrates the absurdity of the subjective theory of value perfectly. You want to argue that it is an objective fact that living in a communist country like the Soviet Union is less preferable than living in a capitalist, free-market society. However, the subjective theory of value does not permit one to conclude that one thing would be objectively preferable to anything else, for obvious reasons. So you've conveniently swept the issue under the rug by invoking OBJECTIVE factors such as torture, prison camps, mass murder, and standard of living.

An objective theory of value refers to man qua man, not a man. The first is the concept, the second the concrete referent. Men in the aggregate tend to value like the concept would value if it could do any such thing. Of course, men in the aggregate can't value either. All valuing is individual and subjective with a natural tendency to man qua man, a kind of biological imperative. In individual rights you find the objectifying of morality. They are a human invention based of human nature. Hence they are also called "natural." Generally speaking it's immoral to violate these rights. The idea of government is to also make it illegal. They are violated through the initiation of physical force. This is libertarian top down, preferred by libertarians to the bottom up of Objectivism which starts with morality and ethics (after the metaphysics-epistemology stuff) which obtains a broader and true base. What the libertarian does has no foundation outside its politics and his is only a political philosophy.

Or, Nazism and communism are grossly immoral to the point of considered evil and to evaluate and then advocate for them economically only is immoral to the same point of evil. There is no moral justification in economics which are the consequence of morality-immorality combinations. You have the morality then the consequences. It's a fallacy to argue this backwards as in "bathtub" economics. You don't properly argue backwards, but you can certainly look and evaluate, but not to see the value of less freedom (immoral and for the ruling elite), rather the value of more.

Again, there are objective values but all valuing is subjective. All subjective values are in the (subjective) valuing while all objective values are there--that is, in the thing--to be valued or not. Examples are air, food, lodging, art, transportation, medicine, knowledge, thinking, water. Take the last: water is an objective value to the human organism the valuing of which is all over the map.

--Brant

[Gary Fisher]

@Francisco Ferrer

I think you're focusing too narrowly on irrelevant details and missing the big picture. Here's the thing, using the theory of subjective value, I can always say that any event that occurred in the Soviet Union is because the people subjectively decided that they preferred to have that happen to them. So why was it necessary for Stalin to seal off the Ukranian border you ask? We could just as well say it's because they wanted him too if we took the subjective theory of value seriously. The reason that I (and you apparently) consider such a hypothesis to be completely ridiculous is because in reality we know that people's preferences emerge from objective facts about their circumstances and their psychology.

My central point is that the subjective theory of value is untestable and therefore pseudo-science. Even if we could somehow know the exact preferences of a given person at a point in time, that knowledge would be completely useless because his preferences could change radically on a dime. Imagine someone who one day decides to buy a car, moves to Tibet to live as an ascetic monk the next, tries to build a house made entirely of blueberries, and then decides to rid the world of car tires. So he blows all his money by buying a car, a plane ticket to Tibet, a ton of blue-berries, and a gun. From the perspective of subjective value theory, this person's behavior and purchasing decisions are just as likely to manifest as that of any other person. Thus, regardless of anyone's actual behavior, the subjective theory of value seems to be "confirmed". But it is only "confirmed" in the same sense that a belief in intercessory prayer is "confirmed". As Wolfgang Pauli put it, the hypothesis "is not only not right, it is not even wrong."

It's because people have desires and preferences that are not "subjective", in the sense of subjective value theory, that we can distinguish sane and insane behavior, and, as in your example, what suicides "normally" do or don't do. Their preferences and behavior emerge from predictable factors in their environment and their objective human psychology. This means that we can make valid inferences about what people want and how they think and use that reasoning to arrive at conclusions about how tweaking our product this way or that might change their purchasing behavior. We can then leverage that knowledge to turn a profit. Similarly, if we were socialist planners, we could do the same thing and figure out what our "comrades" would like us to produce.

I'm certainly not arguing that we should turn to communism or something like that. I'm just saying that the subjective value theory leads us to the wrong conclusions about why the Soviet model failed, why a system of free-enterprise works, how it works, and ultimately how it should work.

[Brant Gaede]

Untestable = pseudo-science? No. It means non-science. Pseudo-science means pretend science.

--Brant

[Selene]

Untestable = pseudo-science? No. It means non-science. Pseudo-science means pretend science.

--Brant

Now Brant, the intellectual infant likes to play pretend...

Remember his post to Michael about playing pretend as a child.

Gary, out of curiosity, what degree/major did you graduate college with?

That is a pretty generic question.

A...

[Francisco Ferrer]

@Francisco Ferrer

I think you're focusing too narrowly on irrelevant details and missing the big picture. Here's the thing, using the theory of subjective value, I can always say that any event that occurred in the Soviet Union is because the people subjectively decided that they preferred to have that happen to them. So why was it necessary for Stalin to seal off the Ukranian border you ask? We could just as well say it's because they wanted him too if we took the subjective theory of value seriously. The reason that I (and you apparently) consider such a hypothesis to be completely ridiculous is because in reality we know that people's preferences emerge from objective facts about their circumstances and their psychology.

Feel free to make all the unsupported claims you wish. You may say that Stalin's victims asked to be starved, Hitler's victims asked to be gassed, or Ted Bundy's victims asked to be decapitated. When assertions are not bolstered by historical data, the sky's the limit.

Of course, such false statements don't serve as an argument against the subjective theory of value--or anything else.

My central point is that the subjective theory of value is untestable and therefore pseudo-science.

Fine, then prove the opposite. Prove that my favorite color should be red, not green. That I should like football better than baseball. That blondes are more fun than brunettes.

Even if we could somehow know the exact preferences of a given person at a point in time, that knowledge would be completely useless because his preferences could change radically on a dime. Imagine someone who one day decides to buy a car, moves to Tibet to live as an ascetic monk the next, tries to build a house made entirely of blueberries, and then decides to rid the world of car tires. So he blows all his money by buying a car, a plane ticket to Tibet, a ton of blue-berries, and a gun. From the perspective of subjective value theory, this person's behavior and purchasing decisions are just as likely to manifest as that of any other person.

Subjective value theory holds that individual preferences are not subject to second guessing or counter-argument. Example: I cannot prove you should like Vermeer more than Picasso.

Nothing about subjective value would lead to the conclusion that individuals will behave in a highly erratic manner. Statistics show that the vast majority of people live stable, rather predictable lives.

Thus, regardless of anyone's actual behavior, the subjective theory of value seems to be "confirmed". But it is only "confirmed" in the same sense that a belief in intercessory prayer is "confirmed". As Wolfgang Pauli put it, the hypothesis "is not only not right, it is not even wrong."

It's because people have desires and preferences that are not "subjective", in the sense of subjective value theory, that we can distinguish sane and insane behavior, and, as in your example, what suicides "normally" do or don't do. Their preferences and behavior emerge from predictable factors in their environment and their objective human psychology. This means that we can make valid inferences about what people want and how they think and use that reasoning to arrive at conclusions about how tweaking our product this way or that might change their purchasing behavior. We can then leverage that knowledge to turn a profit. Similarly, if we were socialist planners, we could do the same thing and figure out what our "comrades" would like us to produce.

I'm certainly not arguing that we should turn to communism or something like that. I'm just saying that the subjective value theory leads us to the wrong conclusions about why the Soviet model failed, why a system of free-enterprise works, how it works, and ultimately how it should work.

Subjective value theory does not argue against the obvious scientific fact that the human body has certain physical requirements that must be satisfied in order to survive. But we cannot leap from that well-established datum to the conclusion that human values are objective. Keeping oneself in condition for longevity is not a choice everybody makes. Or, to take another example, while the vast majority of people prefer the regular company of other human beings, certain individuals do not. Some people are perfectly content being isolated from the rest of society. Yet there is simply no way to logically demonstrate to a person who does not want friends that he should have friends, that it is unhealthy and anti-social and creepy not to have friends.

Back to the Soviet Union. Possessing scientific data about the caloric requirements of the average man of 5'10", 160 lbs. cannot serve as a basis for centrally planning the food requirements of a society of several hundred millions. Average does not equal individual. The nutritional requirements of individuals are widely varying . Two men starting at the same weight may need vastly different qualities of food just to stay at that weight. Vegetables that agree with A's digestive system do not necessarily agree with B's. C can handle large quantities of gluten, but D cannot. Frying in lard works for me, but not for you. E likes the same meal every night; F does not want a repeat meal in a season. Without a pricing system to encourage greater production of food in high demand and to reduce production of food in low demand, shortages and wasteful surpluses are inevitable.

The tragedy of socialism is that it posited an ideal Socialist Man that did not fit the description of very many people at all.

[Brant Gaede]

Nor does Randian man.

--Brant

[Selene]

Now this is ridiculous, everyone knows that natural redheads are much more fun!

Fine, then prove the opposite. Prove that my favorite color should be red, not green. That I should like football better than baseball. That blondes are more fun than brunettes.

[Samson Corwell]

@Wolf DeVoon The Soviet Union was actually quite successful, to an extent. They managed to industrialize very quickly and successfully kept Western Powers out of Eastern Europe. What ultimately did them in was the lack of the critical component of free enterprise. Without that, business (in the form of a high ranking position in the bureaucracy) was just a privilege that the state bestowed upon a party member in exchange for his loyalty to the current regime. It wouldn't make sense for them to invest any value generated from the activity of the economy, since it all belonged to the state anyway, and how much of the value you made you got back depended on how much the party leadership liked you rather than how well your little sector of the economy actually performed.

I assume you are addressing and not quoting Wolf.

Substitute Nazi Germany for the Soviet Union and change some particulars, then make and defend your statement.

--Brant

No reasonable person would ever endorse the atrocities of the Nazis or the Soviets. Societal progress and prosperity should never come at the cost of human life and freedom. But it is absurd to believe that acting morally is the only way for a nation to become strong. The Soviet Union was one of the world's worst despotism's and the average citizen was treated as no more than a tool, but the Soviet Union was powerful. For a better example, look at China. Yeah, it's not Maoist any longer, but it is still very unfree and it is becoming a regional superpower in Asia.

[Samson Corwell]

Now this is ridiculous, everyone knows that natural redheads are much more fun!

Fine, then prove the opposite. Prove that my favorite color should be red, not green. That I should like football better than baseball. That blondes are more fun than brunettes.

[Gary Fisher]

@Francisco Ferrer

Nothing about subjective value would lead to the conclusion that individuals will behave in a highly erratic manner. Statistics show that the vast majority of people live stable, rather predictable lives.

Fromthe Ludwig Von Mises institute website:

The subjectiveness of valuation rests in the nature of satisfaction--satisfaction is subjective and not open to numerical measurement. The extent to which a thing gives satisfaction is always personal. People derive satisfaction from different goods and services; that is, all people are not alike in terms of the types of things that please them. Experience also demonstrates that a person's preferences vary from time to time. His ranking of alternative choices may undergo a reshuffling at any given moment. His scale of values may also be altered by deletions or additions.

Link: http://mises.org/austecon/chap4.asp

It doesn't matter what statistics show when the subjective theory of value is in question. Whether or not people behaved erratically, whether or not they want to be tortured and murdered or not, the subjective theory of value could "explain" any behavior at all by saying that that's simply how they prefer to behave at that moment. The subjective theory of value is still unfalsifiable, and so far you haven't come up with a possible experiment that could test it. Indeed, I argue that it is impossible to do so.

Asking me to prove the opposite of your hypothesis before you will disbelieve it is like asking me to prove that my parents put the presents under the Christmas tree back when I was 7 before you will disbelieve that it was Santa Clause.

[Brant Gaede]

@Francisco Ferrer

Nothing about subjective value would lead to the conclusion that individuals will behave in a highly erratic manner. Statistics show that the vast majority of people live stable, rather predictable lives.

Fromthe Ludwig Von Mises institute website:

The subjectiveness of valuation rests in the nature of satisfaction--satisfaction is subjective and not open to numerical measurement. The extent to which a thing gives satisfaction is always personal. People derive satisfaction from different goods and services; that is, all people are not alike in terms of the types of things that please them. Experience also demonstrates that a person's preferences vary from time to time. His ranking of alternative choices may undergo a reshuffling at any given moment. His scale of values may also be altered by deletions or additions.

Link: http://mises.org/austecon/chap4.asp

It doesn't matter what statistics show when the subjective theory of value is in question. Whether or not people behaved erratically, whether or not they want to be tortured and murdered or not, the subjective theory of value could "explain" any behavior at all by saying that that's simply how they prefer to behave at that moment. The subjective theory of value is still unfalsifiable, and so far you haven't come up with a possible experiment that could test it. Indeed, I argue that it is impossible to do so.

Asking me to prove the opposite of your hypothesis before you will disbelieve it is like asking me to prove that my parents put the presents under the Christmas tree back when I was 7 before you will disbelieve that it was Santa Clause.

Falsification of a theory is for scientific theories. Can you give an example of a falsifiable theory that is not scientific?

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

@Francisco Ferrer

Nothing about subjective value would lead to the conclusion that individuals will behave in a highly erratic manner. Statistics show that the vast majority of people live stable, rather predictable lives.

Fromthe Ludwig Von Mises institute website:

The subjectiveness of valuation rests in the nature of satisfaction--satisfaction is subjective and not open to numerical measurement. The extent to which a thing gives satisfaction is always personal. People derive satisfaction from different goods and services; that is, all people are not alike in terms of the types of things that please them. Experience also demonstrates that a person's preferences vary from time to time. His ranking of alternative choices may undergo a reshuffling at any given moment. His scale of values may also be altered by deletions or additions.

Link: http://mises.org/austecon/chap4.asp

It doesn't matter what statistics show when the subjective theory of value is in question. Whether or not people behaved erratically, whether or not they want to be tortured and murdered or not, the subjective theory of value could "explain" any behavior at all by saying that that's simply how they prefer to behave at that moment.

The subjective theory of value cannot be used to explain the starvation of seven million Ukrainians, as you have claimed, because there is zero evidence that Stalin's victims died by their own choice.

The subjective theory of value is not even necessary to demonstrate that without a profit/price mechanism, a centrally planned economy cannot prevent shortages in one area and oversupply in another.

The subjective theory of value is still unfalsifiable, and so far you haven't come up with a possible experiment that could test it. Indeed, I argue that it is impossible to do so.

Asking me to prove the opposite of your hypothesis before you will disbelieve it is like asking me to prove that my parents put the presents under the Christmas tree back when I was 7 before you will disbelieve that it was Santa Clause.

If values are not subjective then they must be objective. They cannot be both. And they cannot be neither without the word "value" losing meaning entirely.

Now if the value of a thing is not subjective, its value must be based on some observable criterion. What do you suppose that might be? The amount of labor put into the thing? If it's labor, then how do we explain how people become rich by virtually no labor? In 1992 a British farmer stumbled upon a horde of Roman gold and silver coins. He became over a million dollars richer for less than a day's work. No buyer asked the farmer how much labor he put into the gold coins before purchasing them from him. The value of a coin for the new owner had nothing to do with how hard the farmer worked to extract it from the ground.

Is the value of a thing based on its usefulness? How useful is a Rembrandt painting? We cannot eat it, wear it or use it for housing.

Thus for many items, value is not derived from any objectively measurable criterion but rather from the satisfaction of our wants, which vary from individual to individual and circumstance to circumstance.

“But wait,” you ask, “isn’t the water still more useful than

the diamond?” The answer is, “It depends.” It depends entirely

on the valuation of the person who must choose. If a man living

next to a clean mountain stream is offered a barrel of

water, he may not value it at all. The stream itself provides

him with more water than he can possibly use, so the value

of this extra quantity to him is literally nothing. (Perhaps it is

even negative—it might be a nuisance having the barrel

around.) But this fellow may not have any diamonds, so the

possibility of acquiring even one might be enticing. It is clear

that the man will value the diamond more than the water.

But even for the same man, if we change his circumstances,

then his valuation may change completely. If he is

crossing the Sahara, with the diamond already in his pocket,

but he has run out of water and is on the verge of dying, most

likely he would trade the diamond for even a single cup of

water. (Of course, if he were a miser, he might still value the

diamond more highly than the water, even at the risk of dying

of thirst.) The value of goods is subjective—the exact same

diamond and barrel of water may be valued differently by different

people, and even valued differently at different times

by the same person. Callahan, Gene. "Economics for Real People."

2004, page 42.

To return to the point at which I entered this discussion: there is no basis on which to describe the industrialization of the Soviet Union as "successful." It was purchased with a police state that took the lives of many millions of people and sent those who survived into economic stagnation and near poverty.

[Samson Corwell]

@Francisco Ferrer

Nothing about subjective value would lead to the conclusion that individuals will behave in a highly erratic manner. Statistics show that the vast majority of people live stable, rather predictable lives.

Fromthe Ludwig Von Mises institute website:

The subjectiveness of valuation rests in the nature of satisfaction--satisfaction is subjective and not open to numerical measurement. The extent to which a thing gives satisfaction is always personal. People derive satisfaction from different goods and services; that is, all people are not alike in terms of the types of things that please them. Experience also demonstrates that a person's preferences vary from time to time. His ranking of alternative choices may undergo a reshuffling at any given moment. His scale of values may also be altered by deletions or additions.

Link: http://mises.org/austecon/chap4.asp

It doesn't matter what statistics show when the subjective theory of value is in question. Whether or not people behaved erratically, whether or not they want to be tortured and murdered or not, the subjective theory of value could "explain" any behavior at all by saying that that's simply how they prefer to behave at that moment.

The subjective theory of value cannot be used to explain the starvation of seven million Ukrainians, as you have claimed, because there is zero evidence that Stalin's victims died by their own choice.

The subjective theory of value is not even necessary to demonstrate that without a profit/price mechanism, a centrally planned economy cannot prevent shortages in one area and oversupply in another.

The subjective theory of value is still unfalsifiable, and so far you haven't come up with a possible experiment that could test it. Indeed, I argue that it is impossible to do so.

Asking me to prove the opposite of your hypothesis before you will disbelieve it is like asking me to prove that my parents put the presents under the Christmas tree back when I was 7 before you will disbelieve that it was Santa Clause.

If values are not subjective then they must be objective. They cannot be both. And they cannot be neither without the word "value" losing meaning entirely.

Now if the value of a thing is not subjective, its value must be based on some observable criterion. What do you suppose that might be? The amount of labor put into the thing? If it's labor, then how do we explain how people become rich by virtually no labor? In 1992 a British farmer stumbled upon a horde of Roman gold and silver coins. He became over a million dollars richer for less than a day's work. No buyer asked the farmer how much labor he put into the gold coins before purchasing them from him. The value of a coin for the new owner had nothing to do with how hard the farmer worked to extract it from the ground.

Is the value of a thing based on its usefulness? How useful is a Rembrandt painting? We cannot eat it, wear it or use it for housing.

Thus for many items, value is not derived from any objectively measurable criterion but rather from the satisfaction of our wants, which vary from individual to individual and circumstance to circumstance.

“But wait,” you ask, “isn’t the water still more useful than

the diamond?” The answer is, “It depends.” It depends entirely

on the valuation of the person who must choose. If a man living

next to a clean mountain stream is offered a barrel of

water, he may not value it at all. The stream itself provides

him with more water than he can possibly use, so the value

of this extra quantity to him is literally nothing. (Perhaps it is

even negative—it might be a nuisance having the barrel

around.) But this fellow may not have any diamonds, so the

possibility of acquiring even one might be enticing. It is clear

that the man will value the diamond more than the water.

But even for the same man, if we change his circumstances,

then his valuation may change completely. If he is

crossing the Sahara, with the diamond already in his pocket,

but he has run out of water and is on the verge of dying, most

likely he would trade the diamond for even a single cup of

water. (Of course, if he were a miser, he might still value the

diamond more highly than the water, even at the risk of dying

of thirst.) The value of goods is subjective—the exact same

diamond and barrel of water may be valued differently by different

people, and even valued differently at different times

by the same person. Callahan, Gene. "Economics for Real People."

2004, page 42.

To return to the point at which I entered this discussion: there is no basis on which to describe the industrialization of the Soviet Union as "successful." It was purchased with a police state that took the lives of many millions of people and sent those who survived into economic stagnation and near poverty.

If interpersonal utility comparisons are impossible as the subjective theory of value suggests, then you have no basis on which to say that it was unsuccessful, either.

[Francisco Ferrer]

To return to the point at which I entered this discussion: there is no basis on which to describe the industrialization of the Soviet Union as "successful." It was purchased with a police state that took the lives of many millions of people and sent those who survived into economic stagnation and near poverty.

If interpersonal utility comparisons are impossible as the subjective theory of value suggests, then you have no basis on which to say that it was unsuccessful, either.

How can a nation that does not permit individual choice be successful in meeting individual preferences?

Marx wrote in Das Kapital, "Just as the savage must wrestle with nature, in order to satisfy his wants, in order to maintain his life and reproduce it, so civilized man has to do it, and he must do it in all forms of society and under all possible modes of production. With his development the realm of natural necessity expands, because his wants increase; but at the same time the forces of production increase, by which these wants are satisfied."

But in the Soviet Union, purportedly a nation guided by Marxism, the only wants being satisfied were not those of the working class, which sank to an even lower standard of living, but rather those of Stalin and the inner party.

We do not have to demonstrate that life was better in the U.S., we only have to refer to the historical record that millions of Eastern bloc citizens preferred being someplace other than the Workers' Paradise. East Germany, for example, lost 20% of it population.

[Samson Corwell]

To return to the point at which I entered this discussion: there is no basis on which to describe the industrialization of the Soviet Union as "successful." It was purchased with a police state that took the lives of many millions of people and sent those who survived into economic stagnation and near poverty.

If interpersonal utility comparisons are impossible as the subjective theory of value suggests, then you have no basis on which to say that it was unsuccessful, either.

Marx wrote in Das Kapital, "Just as the savage must wrestle with nature, in order to satisfy his wants, in order to maintain his life and reproduce it, so civilized man has to do it, and he must do it in all forms of society and under all possible modes of production. With his development the realm of natural necessity expands, because his wants increase; but at the same time the forces of production increase, by which these wants are satisfied."

But in the Soviet Union, purportedly a nation guided by Marxism, the only wants being satisfied were not those of the working class, which sank to an even lower standard of living, but rather those of Stalin and the inner party.

You are correct that only the elites were satisfied. The Soviet Union's "working class" should more appropriately be called a "servant class" and the country wound up looking more like the structures Marxists complain about. I'm not a Marxist and you will never see me offering moral praise for any totalitarian nations. I am merely pointing out (correctly, I think) that the subjective theory of value would make such evaluations impossible.

[Francisco Ferrer]

You are correct that only the elites were satisfied. The Soviet Union's "working class" should more appropriately be called a "servant class" and the country wound up looking more like the structures Marxists complain about. I'm not a Marxist and you will never see me offering moral praise for any totalitarian nations. I am merely pointing out (correctly, I think) that the subjective theory of value would make such evaluations impossible.

As I've said before on this thread, one does not need to refer to the subjective theory of value in order to demonstrate that socialism is inefficient in the allocation of resources and consistently fails to respond to the the wants of the average citizen.

[Samson Corwell]

You are correct that only the elites were satisfied. The Soviet Union's "working class" should more appropriately be called a "servant class" and the country wound up looking more like the structures Marxists complain about. I'm not a Marxist and you will never see me offering moral praise for any totalitarian nations. I am merely pointing out (correctly, I think) that the subjective theory of value would make such evaluations impossible.

As I've said before on this thread, one does not need to refer to the subjective theory of value in order to demonstrate that socialism is inefficient in the allocation of resources and consistently fails to respond to the the wants of the average citizen.

Again, according to what standard? I do think there is more to wealth than merely satisfying wants. Certainly, not all wants are equal and the obsession with utility on the part of free market advocates is too similiar to scientific socialism for my tastes. If someone doesn't want to comply with a criminal investigation, then tough shit.

[Francisco Ferrer]

The standard that the individual is the highest authority on what is in his best interest. Without profits, without a price mechanism, without the ability to make expeditious changes in production and distribution, socialism will fail completely at meeting the wants of the average person.

Naturally, unable to render anything other than economic inefficiency and stagnation, the socialist/fascist will typically assert that rather than focus on a bourgeois concern with consumer satisfaction, there are more important goals for society: national pride, brotherhood, the family of man, the glory of the working class, etc.

[Samson Corwell]

The standard that the individual is the highest authority on what is in his best interest. Without profits, without a price mechanism, without the ability to make expeditious changes in production and distribution, socialism will fail completely at meeting the wants of the average person.

Naturally, unable to render anything other than economic inefficiency and stagnation, the socialist/fascist will typically assert that rather than focus on a bourgeois concern with consumer satisfaction, there are more important goals for society: national pride, brotherhood, the family of man, the glory of the working class, etc.

Are you implying I'm socialist and/or fascist?

[Francisco Ferrer]

Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that for over 200 years economists have been defending the free market on the grounds that it is history's most effective engine of material prosperity, and, unable to counter this argument, their opponents, who include not only Marxists but religious thinkers and conservatives, have raised the specter of capitalism's soullessness.

I had already made this point well before you entered the discussion:

"No, there is no yardstick for determining what socialists and fascists place such great store in: national pride, sense of community, brotherhood, inner glow, etc."

[Gary Fisher]

The standard that the individual is the highest authority on what is in his best interest. Without profits, without a price mechanism, without the ability to make expeditious changes in production and distribution, socialism will fail completely at meeting the wants of the average person.

Naturally, unable to render anything other than economic inefficiency and stagnation, the socialist/fascist will typically assert that rather than focus on a bourgeois concern with consumer satisfaction, there are more important goals for society: national pride, brotherhood, the family of man, the glory of the working class, etc.

So if an individual decides that going on a murderous killing spree is in his best interest, we can't tell him otherwise because he is the highest authority on what is in his best interest?

[Francisco Ferrer]

The standard that the individual is the highest authority on what is in his best interest. Without profits, without a price mechanism, without the ability to make expeditious changes in production and distribution, socialism will fail completely at meeting the wants of the average person.

Naturally, unable to render anything other than economic inefficiency and stagnation, the socialist/fascist will typically assert that rather than focus on a bourgeois concern with consumer satisfaction, there are more important goals for society: national pride, brotherhood, the family of man, the glory of the working class, etc.

So if an individual decides that going on a murderous killing spree is in his best interest, we can't tell him otherwise because he is the highest authority on what is in his best interest?

Before commenting on a subject, you should take the trouble do a little reading in advance. Libertarianism is the ethical theory of individual freedom, not the theory that there are no universal standards in ethics or that anyone may do anything he wishes. It is the law of equal liberty, defined by Herbert Spencer as the idea "that every man may claim the fullest liberty to exercise his faculties compatible with the possession of like liberty to every other man."

[Brant Gaede]

The standard that the individual is the highest authority on what is in his best interest. Without profits, without a price mechanism, without the ability to make expeditious changes in production and distribution, socialism will fail completely at meeting the wants of the average person.

Naturally, unable to render anything other than economic inefficiency and stagnation, the socialist/fascist will typically assert that rather than focus on a bourgeois concern with consumer satisfaction, there are more important goals for society: national pride, brotherhood, the family of man, the glory of the working class, etc.

So if an individual decides that going on a murderous killing spree is in his best interest, we can't tell him otherwise because he is the highest authority on what is in his best interest?

I don't know where you think you are but you aren't there.

--Brant

[Gary Fisher]

Before commenting on a subject, you should take the trouble do a little reading in advance. Libertarianism is the ethical theory of individual freedom, not the theory that there are no universal standards in ethics or that anyone may do anything he wishes. It is the law of equal liberty, defined by Herbert Spencer as the idea "that every man may claim the fullest liberty to exercise his faculties compatible with the possession of like liberty to every other man."

I know. I got that much. That's why I'm asking you. If libertarianism is "only" an ethical theory, then you are merely saying that free markets should maximize consumer satisfaction. But, this whole time you were arguing that free markets do in fact maximize consumer satisfaction.

Now, in this case, if "should" implies "is", then your whole argument collapses in on itself. That there are objective ethical standards, such as the principle of non-initiation of force, implies that there are things all people will find objectively valuable.