fishsupreme (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
fishsupreme) wrote2002-11-21 10:33 am
fishsupreme) wrote2002-11-21 10:33 am
Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed
I don't normally make entirely-quoted posts, but I found this Mises Institute article to be a fantastic commentary on intellectual elitism:
It is true that the common man doesn't have a great deal of intellectual curiosity. Nor does he question the accepted practices of his society unless he perceives them going in the wrong direction (as many ordinary people do today). So the intellectual class separates itself from the masses and holds them in contempt. This contempt then transfers to the economic system that has done the most to benefit the masses by providing what they want and elevating the economic status of the providers.
Thus many intellectuals deeply resent a system that lavishes rewards on those who in some way serve the masses and withholds rewards from those who see themselves as above such things. They hate it when the marketplace makes Britney Spears and Jennifer Lopez rich girls. They grit their teeth at how Danielle Steel sells more books than they could ever dream of selling.
How can a system be just, they go on, when professional athletes who didn't even finish their underwater-basketweaving university degrees sign multi-million dollar contracts while they, with their Ph.D.'s, languish in relative poverty? Is it fair, they demand to know, that Bill Gates is worth more than entire third world countries? Intellectuals blame capitalism for all this, and much more.
Capitalism rewards celebrities, however, because of the purchasing power of the masses, people the intellectuals see as beneath them. They cannot admit that they either can't or won't participate in this system and that the fault is theirs, not the celebrities or the masses. They believe this system rewards the "wrong" values, and this leads them to want to impose their values on the system as a whole—whether in the name of more tasteful music (by their favorite artists or composers, of course), better books than Danielle Steel's (theirs, perhaps), a better operating system than Windows (we're waiting), and so on.
The whole article is far longer, and (to my brain, at least) more interesting. :)
It is true that the common man doesn't have a great deal of intellectual curiosity. Nor does he question the accepted practices of his society unless he perceives them going in the wrong direction (as many ordinary people do today). So the intellectual class separates itself from the masses and holds them in contempt. This contempt then transfers to the economic system that has done the most to benefit the masses by providing what they want and elevating the economic status of the providers.
Thus many intellectuals deeply resent a system that lavishes rewards on those who in some way serve the masses and withholds rewards from those who see themselves as above such things. They hate it when the marketplace makes Britney Spears and Jennifer Lopez rich girls. They grit their teeth at how Danielle Steel sells more books than they could ever dream of selling.
How can a system be just, they go on, when professional athletes who didn't even finish their underwater-basketweaving university degrees sign multi-million dollar contracts while they, with their Ph.D.'s, languish in relative poverty? Is it fair, they demand to know, that Bill Gates is worth more than entire third world countries? Intellectuals blame capitalism for all this, and much more.
Capitalism rewards celebrities, however, because of the purchasing power of the masses, people the intellectuals see as beneath them. They cannot admit that they either can't or won't participate in this system and that the fault is theirs, not the celebrities or the masses. They believe this system rewards the "wrong" values, and this leads them to want to impose their values on the system as a whole—whether in the name of more tasteful music (by their favorite artists or composers, of course), better books than Danielle Steel's (theirs, perhaps), a better operating system than Windows (we're waiting), and so on.
The whole article is far longer, and (to my brain, at least) more interesting. :)
no subject
But that's just one tangent in a million. Many people who participate in the market do so in destructive ways. It is one thing for me to buy goods and services from you. It is another thing for me to use those goods and services to [literally] murder my opposition. That is an extreme example of course, but the trivial examples do add up.
I know, I know, I am not really criticizing the heart of the article. I just like rambling about the finer points some times...
no subject
I think the point of the article is that if people are weak and value nonproductive or counterproductive activities, this is not the fault of the free market (which merely gives people what they value) but of our culture and educational system (which influence what people value). By criticizing the free market, leftist intellectuals are not actually helping to change the culture in the way they want it moved -- they're merely denying people what they want without offering them anything better. People will not want to read Aristotle merely because you take their Danielle Steel books away from them (to use the article's example; having never read a Danielle Steel book I can make no informed commentary on their content).
Murdering one's opposition is not part of the free market; that's a different issue entirely, and probably one related to the same sociocultural issues that cause people to like vapid media content.
As for solar energy, it gets more efficient every year. 20-30 years from now everyone having solar panels on their house (especially in sunny climes -- solar air conditioning in Tuscon will become practical long before solar heating in Seattle, where there is constant cloud cover and only 8 hours of daylight per day in the winter, does) will probably be commonplace. Right now it's not cheap enough to be in the "clearly superior choice" category.
Re:
But I agree with your market sentiments, except that murder can indeed be part of a free market. I personally believe that even being a hitman should be legal (though one must deal with the consequences...), though few killings are justified (I actually think a greater portion of murders would be justified in a free market). But again, I go off in tangent land.
Thanks for the reading material...lunch time can be boring...
no subject
This may be true, but isn't it productive for any individual to switch to solar only if almost everyone else makes the switch too? Unless it's economically beneficial to that individual regardless of what anybody else does I don't think it's likely to happen, which leads me to my next question...
Personally, I plan to fit any home that I consider "permanent" with enough solar panels to sell enegy back to the grid.
I would like to do this, too, at least in theory. Do you have any experience with this and/or know how long it takes to get back one's initial investment in the solar tech? What about wind power? How much power can one generate, how much does it cost, etc.? Got any recommendations for up-to-date books detailing how to do it?
Re:
I cannot wait until I own a home and can install panels on it.
no subject
Of course, with the efficiency of solar panels doubling about every 10-15 years, given time this will eventually be very cost-effective.
Re:
Though you're probably right about solar energy improving soon. I likely won't have a house that I will stay in for more than a few years for another decade or so, so hopefully the investment will be prime at that point.