“Reflections” by George Roche III – Imprimis, October 1972

A series of short posts summarizing my thoughts as I work my way through the archives of the Imprimis newsletter from Hillsdale college.

This issue contains a few thoughts (reflections) by Mr. Roche on four different topics.

1. The Right Hand and Left Hand – Federal money always means federal control. Federal control means federal oversight. Federal oversight means growth of federal agencies.
2. Sesame Street
3. Parental Responsibility – Roche discusses the intrusion of the state upon the schooling system in the name of “sociological jurisprudence”.
4. London the Price of Socialism – It costs a lot, and still does.

Roche’s comments on Sesame Street or well worth reading. I recently read a chapter from the book Liberation’s Children: Parents and Kids in Postmodern Age in which many of the same thoughts are expressed. In short, Sesame Street isn’t all that it is cracked up to be.

“Consumerism” by Arthur Shenfield – Imprimis, September 1972

A series of short posts summarizing my thoughts as I work my way through the archives of the Imprimis newsletter from Hillsdale college.

The target of this article is the consumerist or “champion of the consumer”.

“The so-called consumerist movement is a movement of self-appointed friends of the consumer whose activities, if they were successful, would destroy him.”

The brunt of the attack focuses on the activities of Ralph Nader. He attributes the source of Mr. Nader’s popularity to a few points, I will cite two here.

• Citizens think of others as fools (as consumers) in need of protection by the government. I loved this quote.”The grim joke is that while Mr. Nader tells the people that they are fools as consumers (for that is his real message, though he does not put it that way), he assures them that they are not fools as voters with the power to implement his legislative proposals. Yet all experience shows that most people are much wiser as consumers than as voters.”
• The myth that corporations hold great power.

In regards to the latter point I agree that the hostility towards corporations is quite irrational at times. However, I do disagree somewhat. A number of large (usually very large) corporations presently exercise great power through political donations and lobbyists. Taking agriculture as an example (and I think some of this may be true of the telecom industry) there are many laws which are backed by large corporations but actually stifle competition by making it impossible for small producers to operate (see Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal: War Stories From the Local Food Front).

Shenfield goes on to document the methods of the consumerist.

• The establishment of new, better and stricter standards of quality, safety, fitness etc.
• The regulation of industry.
• The appointment of public interest representatives on the boards of large corporations.

He ends strong with the following quote.

“The consumerist movement is a typical populist movement. Its roots are ignorance and discontent. There will always be ignorance and there will always be discontent. Therefore there will always be populist movements. But like the others the consumerist movement will have its day and fade away. We shall not hear much of Mr. Nader in a few years’ time.”

How I wish that had been true. Some of the research I did while reading this article turned up what looks to be an interesting podcast from Sam Pelztman of Econotalk.

“What’s Going On?” by Phil Crane – Imprimis, August 1972

A series of short posts summarizing my thoughts as I work my way through the archives of the Imprimis newsletter from Hillsdale college.

Simply put this article is a warning about ineptitude of government. Crane begins the article with three assumption held in Washington in 1972 (and still relevant).

1. The disposition to treat problems as crises.
2. The notion that government, particularly the national government has the answer to all our dilemmas.
3. That the mere allocation and spending of money will eliminate these problems.

Crane goes on in the article to offer up some examples by discussing the Water Control Act of 1972, attempts at a nationalized health care system, and the inefficiency of the US. Postal Service. The answer to most of these problems (then and now) is found in the quote below.

“Possibly there is still a better way. Under a truly federalist system, not only is there a division of powers within the national government but also a distinct division between the national, state, and local realms of authority. The real powers, as Jefferson pointed out, were intended to be vested in county government, and never were we to turn over to government that which is better solved in the private sector. Further, everything, unless specified to the contrary in the Constitution, should have remained in the private domain.”

In “Amusing Ourselves To Death” Neil Postman writes that the invention of the telegraph brought us information from all over the world, most of it being of a trivial nature in the sense that it had no immediate effect on the life of the person receiving it. Information intake has been growing ever since and the depth of that information is shallower than ever. Initially one effect of this was to see problems and their solutions as being of a national nature. Two world wars, the depression, and the cold war must have reinforced these views. Additionally nationalism was still cool. We are presently moving towards the view that every issue is a global issue requiring a global solution. Instead of solving the problem of poverty in our neighborhood, city or state we are now going to wipe out poverty from an entire continent (thank you Bono).

Crane ends with this remark.

“The Gulliver in our private enterprise economy is being strangled by the proliferation of Lilliputians in all phases of government. Witness the endless stream of entangling legislation, implemented by an ever enveloping bureaucracy, and enforced by a multiplying cast of alphabet agencies. A time may soon come when Gulliver will be unable to rise again.”

I think Gulliver may be down for the count. I will end with a chart of our national debt adjusted for inflation. I really don’t know a whole heck of a lot about economics but I do ask myself the question, “Is anyone else a little worried about this?”

“The Dangers of Price Controls” by Henry Hazlitt – Imprimis, July 1972

A series of short posts summarizing my thoughts as I work my way through the archives of the Imprimis newsletter from Hillsdale college.

This issue of Imprimis is about price controls. The assertion being made is plain.

“The first thing to be said about wage and price fixing is that it is harmful at any time and under any conditions.”

I found that a number of books by Henry Hazlitt are available for free . Look at the bottom of this wikipedia entry for links. I already believe that the government has no business setting prices (this would not include profiteering during a disaster) . I am limiting my remarks to things that are either new to me or generate some new thought. Here are my take-aways.

• Nixon fixed prices in 1972 for a few months, I didn’t know that. I need to research the history of price controls in the United States. “Monetary History of the United States” by Milton Friedman looks like an interesting start. Sure hope that library has a copy!
• Pricing is an extremely complicated process and there is no reason to put confidence in a large federal bureaucracy for this task.
• There are potentially constitutional issues to consider.

Dec. 31, 2007 – Listening to some audio from Mises.org today and one of the books that is mentioned as required reading is Hazlitt’s “Economics in One Lesson” which is available online here. If you happen to be a homeschooler I hope you will consider a solid foundation in economics as part of your curriculum.

Click here to see more of my thoughts on economics.

“The World’s Most Important Person” by Leonard E. Read – Imprimis, June 1972

A series of short posts summarizing my thoughts as I work my way through the archives of the Imprimis newsletter from Hillsdale college.

As you might guess the most important person is you, no surprise there (although I don’t agree). He begins well by pointing out that we should seek to live life consistently and we should do so by adopting a basic premise from which all reasoning begins. In his case he asked himself the most probing question possible, “what is man’s earthly purpose?” Based on three assumptions he makes he comes to the following conclusion.

“It is to see how close one can come during his earthly moments to expanding his own consciousness into a harmony with Infinite Consciousness. Or, in lay terms, to see how close one can come during his earthly moments to a realization of those creative potentialities uniquely his own, all of us being greatly varied in this respect.”

Read bases his conclusion upon three assumptions. His first assumption is that “man did not create himself”. I am not convinced the other two are right (you can read these for yourself) but it is a great question. The first question from the Westminster Shorter Catechism asks “What is the chief end of man?…Mans’ chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.” The Shorter Catechism comes to a clearer and more succinct conclusion.

Moving on Read continues to argue for the importance of working through all of life in consistent accordance with your premises. He then goes on to offer a helpful explanation of one of Immanuel Kant’s premises by using the following maxim.

“I have a moral right to my life, my livelihood, my liberty. Is that good? According to Kant, that is good only if you can concede that same right to every other human being—universality. Can I? Yes, I can. Therefore, it is good. Let me reverse the maxim and watch it come through. I have a moral right to take the life, the livelihood, the liberty of another. Is that good? According to Kant, that is good only if you can rationally concede the right of murder, theft, enslavement to every other person on earth. Can I? I cannot. Therefore, it is not good.”

Read points out that it is unlikely that Kant could have lived in manner consistent with this premise and therefore it is critical that we continue to seek truth and expand our consciousness through introspection and improvement of self. Read goes on to comment about governments and this is where his speech offers the most provocative insights.

“In order to know what government should and should not do, you must know what government is and is not. I have been saying for years that the essential nature of government is organized force.”

“The distinction between you as an agent of government and you as a private citizen is as an agent of government you have a constabulary—an organized force—behind you: you issue an edict and I obey or take the consequences. If this organized force be removed from behind you, you are restored to private citizenship”

“It (government) can inhibit, restrain, prohibit, penalize. The next logical question is, what in all good conscience should be restrained, penalized, prohibited?”

“What we have to recognize is that this physical force is definitely not a creative force.”

“All of this is by way of saying that we should confine government to inhibiting the destructive actions of men, and that all creative actions, without any exception whatsoever, should be left to men acting freely, privately, cooperatively, voluntarily, competitively. That is how I draw the line.”

Read’s point here is to say that a government should not act in such a way as to inhibit this pursuit of what I will call the “grand premise” (although that is exactly the system most of us unknowingly live happily within today in my opinion). Read uses the image of a clenched fist in describing the role of government, I can only add that perhaps a better image is a Nanny with a clenched fist.