Mises on Why Capitalism is to Blame for Everything Bad in this World

This is a hilariously funny quotation from Ludwig von Mises on why capitalism is to blame for everything bad in this world!

Mises writes that

nothing is more unpopular today than the free market economy, i.e., capitalism.  Everything that is considered unsatisfactory in present-day conditions is charged to capitalism.  The atheists make capitalism responsible for the survival of Christianity.  But the papal encyclicals blame capitalism for the spread of irreligion and the sins of our contemporaries, and the Protestant churches and sects are no less vigorous in their indictment of capitalist greed.  Friends of peace consider our wars as an offshoot of capitalist imperialism.  But the adamant nationalist warmongers of Germany and Italy indicted capitalism for its "bourgeois" pacifism, contrary to human nature and to the inescapable laws of history.  Sermonizers accuse capitalism of disrupting the family and fostering licentiousness.  But the "progressives" blame capitalism for the preservation of allegedly outdated rules of sexual restraint.  Almost all men agree that poverty is an outcome of capitalism.  On the other hand many deplore the fact that capitalism, in catering lavishly to the wishes of people intent upon getting more amenities and a better living, promotes a crass materialism.  These contradictory accusations of capitalism cancel one another.  But the fact remains that there are few people left who would not condemn capitalism altogether.  

Austrian Macroeconomics on Economic Depressions with a Monetarist Twist!

This is a quotation from Richard M. Ebeling's Austrian Macroeconomics:  Review of Roger W. Garrison's Time and Money.

What is going on here is this:  Ebeling first provides the standard Austrian School explanation of economic depressions.  This is the story involving the money supply being artificially increased followed by the artificial lowering of the market interest rate.  This then causes resources to shift into producing long-term investment projects as opposed to consumer goods production.

Then, he mentions an objection raised by Sir John Hicks.  Hick argues that the traditional Austrian theory cannot be the explanation of depression because the economy, based on this theory, will self-correct too quickly, i.e., a serious investment boom could never really start up and get going.  Resources would quickly shift back to the consumer goods industry from the longer-term investment projects and the "boom" in the longer-term investment area would quickly come to an end.  However, since long-term investment booms have started and have lasted for some time, then there is obviously a problem with having a theory that does not allow for the boom phase to even get started.

Then Ebeling mentions Roger W. Garrison's proposed solution to this problem.  Garrison brings in ideas from the Monetarist school in order to "stick a time delay" into the model.  Then, with this "time delay" a prolonged "investment boom" will occur, to be followed by the "bust" part of the business cycle.

Here is how Ebeling puts it (all emphasis is mine):

Garrison retells the Austrian story by taking his cue from the type of analysis used by the Monetarists in explaining how in the short-run a monetary expansion can push unemployment and resource use BELOW the "natural rate of unemployment."  In the short-run, an economy always has some slack, even when it is operating at "full employment."

Garrison argues an economy has the capability of temporarily functioning BEYOND its "normal" full employment production possibilities.  This, he says, is what enables the investment boom to continue for a significant period of time before the "self-reversing" process of rising consumer demand brings the investment boom to a halt.

 The longer-term investment projects CAN CONTINUE for a prolonged period of time because simultaneous with this, the short-term slack in the economy enables consumer goods production to expand as well, delaying any reduced supply of consumer goods and a rise in their prices sufficient to swamp the investment boom.

 Let me try to put this into my own words.  In the standard Austrian model of depression here is what happens.

1. The monetary authority expands the money supply and creates an artificially low market interest rate. 
2. Investors (assuming "elastic expectations," i.e., investors will react to the lower interest rates and start investing in longer-term projects) are induced to borrow and invest in longer term projects (as opposed to shorter-term projects and consumer goods production)
3. To invest in these longer-term projects, they have to "bid away" resources (labor, tools, equipment) from the other shorter-term and consumer goods industries.  
4. The factor owners (owners of the factors of production) in these longer-term industries are making really good large monetary incomes.  They want to spend their money on consumer goods.
5. The problem is this:  if the factors of production have been shifted to longer term projects then obviously they are not available to work on the shorter term and consumption goods projects.  In other words, if the workers and machines are all dedicated to building bridges they cannot be dedicated to building consumer goods. 
6. So now the pent up demand for consumer goods will tend to bid up prices for consumer goods.  Also, consumer goods manufacturers, seeing the potentially much higher prices, can bid up wages and other payments to factors in order to shift the factors of production BACK to the consumer goods producing industries.

Now, Garrison wants to introduce a "time delay" into his model in order to explain the prolonged investment boom.  To do so, he brings up this Monetarist idea of SLACK in the economy.  With slack (e.g., marginal workers, people working overtime, factories being used below 100% of capacity and so on), the economy can expand in BOTH sectors, i.e., the longer-term investment boom can happen AND more consumer goods can also be produced!  In the traditional version above, resources would have to "shift back" from the longer-term projects TO the consumer goods production section.  But, if the economy can tap into this "slack," then the resources DO NOT HAVE TO SHIFT BACK RIGHT AWAY.  The resources dedicated to the longer term projects can STAY THERE; the slack can fill the needs to produce the additional consumer goods demanded.

That is my interpretation of what Ebeling wrote about Garrison's model. 

  

The Abe Simpson Version of Macroeconomics?

This is a quotation from Richard M. Ebeling's article entitled Austrian Macroeconomics:  Review of Roger W. Garrison's Time and Money.  This quote reminds me of Abraham Simpson from the Simpsons show!  See if you can guess why!  In my own person life, I remember my grandpa telling me about his lived experiences in the Soviet Union (the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic).  These stories certainly left a mark on me--when I think of communism, I think of how the total State starved my family members almost to death.  Also, the discussion in Ebeling's quote is very relevant to today's economic situation:  he is talking about the German hyperinflation of the early 1920s.

After an experience of credit expansion, inflation, and the business cycle, the memory remains, both of the details of how it has effected various people in their respective corners of the market and what they have learned about the mechanisms and consequences of government policy in general. 

Many Germans, over several generations, seemed to have retained a "living memory"--even when it was based on what grandpa has told--about the dangers of monetary abuse and hyperinflation derived from the experiences of the early 1920s.

The Role of Prices in a Free Market: The Hayekian Knowledge Problem

F. A. Hayek wrote about the importance of using the price system as a coordination tool.  "Far from being appropriate only to comparatively simple conditions," Hayek writes in The Road to Serfdom, "it is the very complexity of the division of labor under modern conditions which makes competition the only method by which such coordination can be adequately brought about."  Then Hayek adds:  "This is precisely what the price system does under competition, and which no other system even promises to accomplish.  It enables entrepreneurs, by watching the movement of comparatively few prices...to adjust their activities to those of their fellows."  (all emphasis mine)

 Richard M. Ebeling, in an article entitled Austrian Macroeconomics:  Review of Roger W. Garrison's Time and Money, writes a very concise definition of "the role of prices."  I want to put this up because I think it clearly explains why communism is impossible, i.e., why it is impossible to eliminate prices.

The role of prices under conditions of imperfect knowledge in markets with continual change is precisely to have an institutional mechanism that enables actors to coordinate their activities WITHOUT their needing to possess ALL "the data" of the market as a whole. Market actors can use their special and localized knowledge of time and place in the division of labor WITHOUT ANY OF THEM POSSESSING THE GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ENTIRE ECONOMIC SYSTEM. (emphasis mine)

It is NOT the People's Fault for the Plastic Bag Ban in Toronto

It is NOT the People's Fault

Ah, the blame game.  Who is to blame for the recent plastic bag ban in Toronto?  According to the National Post article by Terence Corcoran, the list of possible suspects worthy of condemnation is rather long. 

Maybe the science-be-damned environmentalists are out to get the evil plastic industry. 

Or maybe opportunistic small-time but power-hungry municipal politicians are pouncing on the chance "to make their mark."  How such slander that besmirches the reputation of our normally "altruistic" politicians could be published in a reputable newspaper is beyond me. 

Or maybe these same municipal politicians are simply "dumb" city councilors who place more value in the opinion of the Easter Bunny than in studies and research.  Why waste time and money on conducting objective research when one can simply appeal to the all-knowing wisdom of elected politicians.  The divine-right of the city councilor is, after all, a well established principle of political economy. 

Or maybe The Retail Council is a spineless jellyfish that is selling out the plastic industry due to its cowardice.  If only it had a backbone to stand up to these dumb and/or opportunistic city councilors, then something good might happen in Toronto. 

Or maybe the prime suspect is the people themselves.  As Mayor Rob Ford so eloquently put it, "it's the people's fault." 

The mayor laments the lack of citizen engagement in municipal politics.  "People are just sitting back and listening, but they don't pick up the phone, they don't go down to city hall, they don't ask questions," he says.

But the most obvious objection is simply this:  how can they, Mr. Mayor?  Doesn't the surprise nature of the vote make citizen "engagement" next to impossible?  When will the people get the chance to organize an effective opposition if the city council pulls surprise out-of-the-blue votes?  The city council is certainly not signaling much of an interest in encouraging further citizen participation.

Of course, the mayor's comments may be directed not so much at this particular incident with banning plastic bags as at a general apathy towards municipal politics.  The people have tuned out; they have abdicated their responsibility to keep these city councilors accountable.  The people have voted in terrible representation, and now they are doing nothing to correct their earlier electoral mistake. 

To begin, there is no such thing as "the people."  The mayor might as well blame Martians for the political problems in Toronto.  There is no collective blob called "the people"; there is no collective brain that does the thinking for the collective people; there are, however, many individuals living within the monopoly territory called the city of Toronto.  So the problem the mayor should be asking himself is, "why does an individual not care enough to be engaged in municipal politics?"

Maybe the reason why an individual just does not care is because he or she feels powerless to bring about effective change.  After all, the relationship between the city and an individual is an antagonistic.  A citizen may not even be a voter; clearly he or she has given no consent to any of these politicians, yet this citizen has no way to opt-out of the decisions that the city council imposes upon him or her.  The citizen is, in effect, living under the communistic principle of majority rule.  He or she, as an individual, has no power; the fictitious "will" of the majority must be obeyed. 

Maybe the citizen realizes that he or she has absolutely no way to financially control the behavior of his or her official representative, who may very well be a person the citizen did not vote for in the first place.  A government, by definition, cannot be held accountable by anyone because taxation is not voluntary.  The city does not send out friendly flyers with pixies and leprechauns on them in order to encourage the citizen to donate some love money to the city.  If the citizen doesn't pay then the city is not going to sit idly by; the city will enforce its taxation bill.

So far, the individual has no way to guarantee who his or her representative will be because the individual has this communist philosophy of majority rule imposed upon him or her.  Was the individual ever asked to sign up for such an arrangement?  Nope.  One must begin by doubting whether any of this is a true expression of individual consent, i.e., whether any of this "legitimizes" the government.  Moreover, the individual has no way to financially control the city's behavior.  This is because the city has effectively said to every individual:  you don't own your property.  Pay us your taxes or you will be in trouble big time.

So what does the mayor want an individual to do?  Call a politician on the phone.  Attend a meeting.  Ask a question.  Does the city call you politely on the phone and ask for a friendly donation of funds to pay for city's operations?  Does the city attend any public meetings or ask the people any questions?  According to Corcoran's article, the city couldn't be bothered to engage in a public review.  Instead, the city has the power to use force against you.  "Obey or die," said Trotsky.  "Obey or lose your property," says the city. 

This is not a fair fight.  This is a rigged game.  And the game is rigged against the individual.  That is the point. 

In fact, the game is so rigged that each politician has a vested interest in keeping things just the way they are now.  We will not see a parade of politicians swooping in to take advantage of this "opportunity" to increase individual participation in municipal politics.  There will be no crusade to get people excited about municipal politics as a result of this plastic bag ban.  It is against the individual self-interest of a politician to do so.  Isn't it easier to rule over people who passively submit than to rule over people who are monitoring your every move?

In conclusion, the mayor is wrong to blame the fictitious phantom he calls "the people" for the Toronto city council's decision to ban plastic bags.  What he is doing is that he is effectively blaming the victims for the crime.  Instead, he should be attacking a system without legitimate consent from all individuals, without any protection of private property, without any way for an individual to financially control politicians, and without any meaningful way for the individual to exercise his or her will.  The problem is ultimately that the city council can use coercion on its subjects and impose a non-voluntary outcome on them.  With such an imbalance of power, the people are not to blame.  The communistic rule by majority and voting are to blame. 

Hans-Hermann Hoppe on Original Appropriation of Bodies, Ethics, and Argumentation

This is footnote 17 from Chapter 10 of Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Democracy:  The God That Failed; The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order.  The reason why I am reproducing Dr. Hoppe's footnote is because I feel that these core areas do not receive enough attention on Facebook.  The issues raised in this footnote are extremely important because they have such broad implications, yet seem to receive little to no Facebook coverage, at least not directly.  The discussion of original appropriation of bodies forms the basis of all property rights.  The discussion of argumentation as a subcategory of human action is a sophisticated way to refute socialism and its claims of being the "moral high ground."

The first, initially outlined by Rothbard, proceeds via an argumentum a contrario.  If, contrary to the principle of first or original appropriation, a person A were not considered the owner of his visibly (demonstrably, and intersubjectively ascertainably) appropriated body and the standing room and places originally (prior to everyone else) appropriated through him by means of his body, then only two alternative arrangements exist.  Either another later-coming person B must be recognized as the owner of A's body and the places originally appropriated by A, or both A and B must be considered equal co-owners of all bodies and places.

(The third conceivable alternative, that no one should own any body and originally appropriated place, can be ruled out as an impossibility.  Acting requires a body and standing room and we cannot not act; hence, to adopt this alternative would imply the instant death of all of mankind).

In the first case, A would be reduced to the rank of B's slave and subject of exploitation.  B is the owner of the body and places originally appropriated by A, but A in turn is not the owner of the body and places so appropriated by B.  Using this ruling, two categorically distinct classes of persons are constituted:  slaves such as A and masters such as B, to whom different "laws" apply.  Hence, while such a ruling is certainly possible, it must be discarded from the outset as a human ethic, equally and universally applicable for everyone qua human being (rational animal).  For a rule to aspire to the rank of a law--a just rule--it is necessary that it apply equally and universally to everyone.  The rule under consideration manifestly does not fulfill this universalization requirement.

Alternatively, in the second case of universal and equal co-ownership the universalization requirement is apparently fulfilled.  However, this alternative suffers from another, even more severe deficiency, because if it were adopted all of mankind would perish immediately, for every action of a person requires the use of scarce means (at least his body and its standing room).  However, if all goods were co-owned by everyone, then no one at any time or place would be allowed to do anything unless he had previously secured everyone else's consent to do so.  Yet how could anyone grant such consent if he were not the exclusive owner of his own body (including its vocal chords) by means of which this consent would be expressed?  Indeed, he would first need others' consent in order to be allowed to express his own, but these others could not give their consent without first having his, etc.  Thus, only the first alternative--the principle of original appropriation--is left.  It fulfills the universalization requirement and it is praxeologically possible.

The second argument, first advanced by this author [i.e., Hans-Hermann Hoppe] and yielding essentially the same conclusion, has the form of an impossibility theorem.  The theorem proceeds from a logical reconstruction of the necessary conditions of ethical problems and an exact definition and delineation of the purpose of ethics. 

First, for ethical problems to arise conflict between separate and independent agents must exist (or must at least be possible); and a conflict can only emerge in turn with respect to scarce means or "economic" goods.  A conflict is possible neither with respect to superabundant or "free" goods such as, under normal circumstances, the air that we breathe, nor with respect to scarce but non-appropriable goods such as the sun or the clouds, i.e., the "conditions," rather than the "means," of human action.  Conflict is possible only with respect to controllable ("appropriable") means such as a specific piece of land, tree or cave situated in a specific and unique spatio-temporal relation vis-à-vis the sun and/or the rain clouds. 

Hence, the task of ethics is to propose rules regarding the "proper" versus the "improper" use of scarce means.  That is, ethics concerns the assignment of rights of exclusive control over scarce goods, i.e., property rights,in order to rule out conflict.  Conflict, however, is not a sufficient prerequisite for ethical problems, for one can come into conflict also with a gorilla or a mosquito, for instance, yet such conflicts do not give rise to ethical problems.  Gorillas and mosquitoes pose merely a technical problem.  We must learn how to successfully manage and control the movements of gorillas and mosquitoes just as we must learn to manage and control the inanimate objects of our environment. 

Only if both parties to a conflict are capable of propositional exchange, i.e., argumentation, can one speak of an ethical problem; that is, only if the gorilla and/or the mosquito could, in principle, pause in their conflictuous activity and express "yes" or "no," i.e., present an argument, would one owe them an answer.

The impossibility theorem proceeds from this proposition in clarifying, first, its axiomatic status.  No one can deny, without falling into performative contradictions, that the common rationality as displayed by the ability to engage in propositional exchange constitutes a necessary condition for ethical problems because this denial would itself have to be presented in the form of a proposition.  Even an ethical relativist who admits the existence of ethical questions, but denies that there are any valid answers, cannot deny the validity of this proposition (which accordingly has been referred to also as the "a priori of argumentation"). 

Second, it is pointed out that everything that must be presupposed by argumentation cannot in turn be argumentatively disputed without getting entangled in a performative contradiction, and that among such presuppositions there exist not only logical ones, such as the laws of propositional logic (e.g., the law of identity), but also praxeological ones.  Argumentation is not just free-floating propositions but always involves also at least two distinct arguers, a proponent and an opponent, i.e., argumentation is a subcategory of human action.

Third, it is then shown that the mutual recognition of the principle of original appropriation, by both proponent and opponent, constitutes the praxeological presupposition of argumentation.  No one can propose anything and expect his opponent to convince himself of the validity of this proposition or else deny it and propose something else unless his and his opponent's right to exclusive control over their "own" originally appropriated body (brain, vocal chords, etc.) and its respective standing room were already presupposed and assumed as valid.

Finally, if the recognition of the principle of original appropriation forms the praxeological presupposition of argumentation, then it is impossible to provide a propositional justification for any other ethical principle without running thereby into performative contradictions.

Dissecting the Media Spin on the Montreal Protests for "Free" College Tuition

Dissecting the Media Spin on the Montreal Protests for "Free" College Tuition

The CBC recently ran a story entitled How a Student Uprising Is Reshaping Quebec by Jennifer Clibbon consisting of interviews with two prominent francophone journalists and a political scientist, which is available at:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/05/29/f-quebec-students-voices.html

The interviewees have ascribed to the student protesters near-hero like status.  While the student protesters are portrayed as being incapable of doing wrong, the government of Quebec is portrayed as being incapable of doing anything right. 

I plan to first dissect this apologia for the student protesters in order to show how completely ridiculous this entire CBC article really is.  After demolishing some of the fallacious arguments made by the three interviewees, I will argue that these student protesters are actually conformists calling out to the government of Quebec to enslave them further.  If these students think they are fighting for "freedom" and "rights," then they are sorely mistaken.

The article paints the students as being ultra-modern, cutting-edge, world- and media-savvy, and on the cutting edge of technology, which differentiate them from their old and outdated elected leaders.  One interviewee goes so far as to assert that the students are "better placed than their elders to imagine what kind of education system our society needs to face the challenges of the future."  To further this point, the article stresses how the youth see no future because of the dominance of the older generations who will consume most of the tax revenues in the form of health care costs and pensions.  In other words:  the students are the future while the elected leaders are the out-of-touch past.

One of the most glaring problems with this past-future or conservative government versus progressive students dichotomy is that the student protesters have not offered one innovative, cutting-edge, or modern solution to the education problem in Canada.  If they were really revolutionaries "fighting the Establishment," they would be offering us solutions such as privatizing education in order to re-establish competition and choice in the education system or they would be demanding that the leviathan bureaucracies and teachers' unions be smashed.  With such private solutions, the student protesters could instead peacefully negotiate the price of their education with various and competing service providers. But no!  Our revolutionaries, far from being original thinkers daring enough to challenge the status quo, seem to be simply recycling the old worn out ideas of the Syndicalists.  The CBC article mentions that the student protesters use strikes, boycotts, and picket lines and that there has been "violent actions on campus against those who actively oppose the strike."  How is this any different from the definition of the Syndicalist approach advocated by George Sorel who wanted to launch, under the name action directe, tactics such as riots, strikes, general strikes, and sabotage?  How this can be called an "accelerated education in political culture" is beyond me.  If education is any sign of civilized behavior then what we are witnessing is certainly the behavior of the uneducated. 

The media certainly enjoys portraying the student protests as a spontaneous uprising of these young individuals.  I have heard it used before by other Quebec media sources and, unsurprisingly, this CBC article also mentions "the spontaneous demonstrations."  What is rather humorous--one might say ironic--about this is that the term spontaneous ordering is one of the most famous terms in economics of F. A. Hayek.  But why on earth would a Hayekian term be used to describe what these student protesters are doing?  The sweet irony here is that our anti-neo-liberal protesters--and if you ever watch CUTV they just love to mention "neo-liberal" interminably--are using a term that is neo-liberal!!!  Don't our "accessible" education freedom fighters know that Hayekian economics--the evil neo-liberal economics that they hate so passionately--is all about the study of the spontaneous--of what the student protesters allegedly do!     

The CBC article also tries to portray the student protesters as receiving a "crash course in rights and freedoms."  Unfortunately for these student protesters, even rampant grade inflation is not going to save them from failing this course.  What "rights" have these students learned about from these never-ending nightly protests?  Their "right" to use the coercive taxing power of the state in order to provide them with a "free" education paid for by the extortion of the vast majority of other people who clearly oppose this plan?  Their "right" to shape the national identity, whatever that is supposed to be?  I suppose that is their supposedly collective "right" to deny the individual his or her right to shape his or her life however he or she sees fit.  Their "right" to "build a different world" without first getting the explicit consent of all the other people affected by the imposition of their grandiose plan?  Their "right" to set up picket lines and infringe upon the egress rights of their fellow students?  Their "right" to unilaterally impede upon the use of private property and to deny the owners the ability to earn legitimate incomes from the use of their own property?  Their "right" to spout off the fallacious economic theories that they learned into their introductory political science course, which then somehow entitles them to demand that taxpayers pay for more of this "education"?  Their "right" to the "new world" of social democracy?  What rights have they learned?  Nothing!!!  Not one.  The most basic characteristic of a society is the right to freely exchange.  Nowhere in this article do these students call for free exchange.  Instead, they place demands upon people to give them what they want at the end of the government's gun and then have the temerity to claim that they are "not slackers."

Now, if they remain ignorant of rights, are they at least conversant in the idea of freedom?  Do they know what freedom is?  To understand freedom, one must begin with the insight that aggression is unjust.  When the state beats, shoots rubber bullets at, harasses, and intimidates the peaceful protesters, is this not an act of aggression against the bodies of these peaceful protesters?  Yes, it is!  But what then do these student protesters want?  They want free tuition!  But who will pay for this education?  Certainly not the students, they want the government to pay for it all.  But where will the government in Quebec City get this money from?  Will Ben "Helicopter" Bernanke make a special trip with his helicopter to Quebec City in order to rain money down on Jean Charest in order to solve his budgetary problems?  Certainly not!  The government in Quebec City will go to the taxpayers of Quebec and force them to pay for something they do not want.  Even the CBC article says that they do not want to pay for this.  "Against the students and their allies," we are told, "there is a significant part of Quebec society that doesn't support the protests (and the accompanying violence) and approves of the increase in tuition."  So, it is wrong for the government to use aggression against the allegedly peaceful protesters, but it is acceptable for the students to use the aggression of the state's power to tax people against their will in order to enrich themselves.  Maybe the problem is that the word "hypocrisy" has been confused with the word "freedom"? 

The reason for all of this confusion is that the CBC article assumes throughout that education is actually the "real" issue being debated here.  The debate has been framed in terms of "access to education" with comments claiming that "higher education [is] a vehicle for economic and social 'emancipation.'"  The simplest way to reply to this is to point out that education is a phantom--it does not exist in our public system.  In her important contribution to the history of education, Charlotte Iserbyt saw this problem right on page one of her massive study concerning the Deliberate Dumbing Down of America.  She writes:  "the philosophies of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Wilhelm Wundt, and John Dewey et al., reflect a total departure from the traditional definition of education."  Traditional education is as dead as a Tyrannosaurus Rex.  Moreover, in his 1931 Page-Barbour Lectures at the University of Virginia, Albert Jay Nock was already lamenting the fact that education had already gone the way of the dodo and had already been replaced by the "imposter system," i.e., training.  So whatever these students are demanding of the taxpayers of Quebec, it is certainly not education because education does not exist today.  What does exist is the government's monopoly on training.

So what then do these students want? What these students want is to be enslaved.  To make such a claim is certainly shocking and rightly so.  They have failed to learn from one of the greatest political philosophers of all time, Étienne de la Boétie who wrote of the mindset of these Quebec students in his famous work The Politics of Obedience:  The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude.  La Boétie warned the French of his day of the dangers of tyranny when he observed that people are trained to adore rulers.  It is fairly easy to see this parrot-like training of students in introductory business courses.  The economy is in a depression, what should we do?  The government should intervene and spend!  Too many marketers are unscrupulous, what should we do?  The government should intervene and push some sort of "social responsibility" agenda!  Prices are rising too quickly, what should we do?  The government through its central bank should intervene and slow down the rate of new money supply creation!  The government has all the answers.  The right answer to every question is the government knows best.  To put this in terms that a teenager will certainly get:  the public "education" system is indistinguishable from the system imposed by the Movementarian leadership on Edna Krabappel's classroom.  Do you really want to be in a system in which Bart Simpson gets every answer right because the answer to every question is "the Leader" did it?

In conclusion, training has nothing to do with "education"; training has everything to do with maintaining the status quo, i.e., of locking in one ruling group.  To call for more public "education," i.e., to call for more training is, in essence, to call for more rulers, more conformity to the parrot-like memorize and regurgitate system, and more tyranny over the minds of men.  This is not a system that encourages the development of an original mind; this is a system that produces trained automatons.  If these students really want a lesson in rights and freedoms they should ponder this question:  why do you want to uphold a monopoly system--a monopoly over your mind--when monopoly is the very antithesis of the freedom you supposedly are seeking?

NEIL M. TOKAR

Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario

June 5, 2012