Socialist Absolutely Want to dominate in every way. M.E. Has nailed the facts to the wall in an understandable and rational reading format. Exposing Adam Smith and Mandeville as government (my opinion-globalists) is top flight. Extremism born of False Dualisms, is the order of the day, again tightly quoting Plato.
thank you for the clearly put arguments. planning is a process, not a fight and takes time. it can only work out when all plans are laid out on the table, so to speak, with transparency and room for (counter)arguments. ask any housewife about planing ;-))
This article does not make the case that Mandeville was opposed to crime prevention. It makes the case that Mandeville considered humans to be naturally amoral, or even immoral, and that the only good a system of morality had was to restrain the masses.
Further, it shows that Mandeville propagated the idea that humans, and therefore human economy, were driven solely by natural lust, ie animal spirits. Which puts him ideologically in the camp of the globalist oligarchy.
Agree or disagree, but that seems to be the point regarding Mandeville.
Lying that advocates of laissez faire had no plans for a legal system restraining crime invalidates your whole essay. LaRouche nonsense. Von Mises called it planning for freedom in his book by that title. Spencer made it clear as did Rothbard.
I wonder if that Mandeville poem was the inspiration for today's "Common Good", since these were the last two words of it.
In Companies House, Hellfire Ltd was established in September 2024 and The Hellfire Club Creative Limited established in 2020 and dissolved without providing accounts. A common director is named as Benjamin Charles Donald Mills. I suspect this is a composite name. He has multiple registered identities, which compromises audits and KYC checks. This puts the public at risk to money laundering and terrorism financing. I've been writing a compliance report on this linked directorate, which I will publish shortly.
"The point is that man freed from his fetters is morality personified. Such a man therefore does not need any moralistic injunctions in order to live righteously. Free a man from his bondage and thereafter everything else will take care of itself. On the other hand, man in his unredeemed state cannot possibly live morally, no matter what moral teaching he is given. It is an intrinsic impossibility, for his very foundation is immorality. That is, he lives a lie, a basic contradiction: functioning in all his relationships as the separate entity he believes himself to be, whereas in reality no such separation exists. His every action therefore does violence to other 'selves' and other 'creatures,' which are only manifestations of the unitary consciousness. So Society had to invent some restraints in order to protect itself from its own worst excesses and thereby maintain some kind of status quo. The resulting arbitrary rules, which vary with place and time and therefore are purely relative, it calls 'morality,' and by upholding this man-invented 'idea' as the highest good–oftentimes sanctioned by religious 'revelation' and scriptures, society has provided man with one more excuse to disregard the quest for liberation or relegate it to a fairly low priority in his scheme of things."
While we believe in centralized (as well as decentralized) planning, radical Marxists do not want to run everything “from the top down”. Don't dismiss us so casually with these put-downs. We are democratic, hard as that may be for you to believe (steeped as you seem to be in anti-communist ideology)
I am friends with many good practical people who consider themselves communist, and there are even agreements I have with them on various elements of national political economic systems, valuing productive powers of labor, industrial progress, workers rights, and standing against imperialism etc. However, these Marxists tend to be people who also are principally pragmatic good people who look for the useful reasonable things within Marx's writings, and leave the bad irrational stuff, which radical Marxists ideologically embrace, since they treat Marx like a religious text instead of a theoretician who is open to criticism. So when I refer to the term "radical Marxist", I'm referring to those who are ideologically committed to ALL elements and fundamental axioms of the Engels-Marx Das Capital and broader Dialectic Materialism, Feuerbachian assumptions and Hegelian axioms too which were promoted within the systemic worldview of Marx and Engels. As far as I can see it, these core axioms which I would consider destructive and which ultimately demand a utilitarian approach to a mechanistic and destructive form of top down management at the cost of the individual creative powers are 1) the assumption that private property and especially private ownership within the productive forces should be maintained (ie: zero entrepreneurialism permitted), 2) enforcement of a naive and mathematical concept of equal outcomes, 3) the abolishment of religion within all 'scientifically managed' systems, and finally 4) the assumption of an underlying invariant belief in class struggle as a fundamental law shaping all tension which carries with it certain core assumptions about the intrinsic corruption of human nature of those who have affluence, and intrinsic need for permanent revolution by the proletariate without any ability to acknowledge the principle of a harmony of interests as promoted by the American System school of Leibniz, Franklin, Hamilton, Clay, Carey, and I would say Xi Jinping today. As far as I can tell, entreprenneurialism, private ownership, a tendency to embrace a religious life are natural things that individuals would tend to embrace if left to their own. So to restate, I'm not against top down planning, but I'm quite committed to the systems that place fundamental value on personal individual freedom and personal initiative, personal happiness, and personal ownership while simultaneously valuing the General Welfare of a nation and humanity as a whole.
Socialist Absolutely Want to dominate in every way. M.E. Has nailed the facts to the wall in an understandable and rational reading format. Exposing Adam Smith and Mandeville as government (my opinion-globalists) is top flight. Extremism born of False Dualisms, is the order of the day, again tightly quoting Plato.
thank you for the clearly put arguments. planning is a process, not a fight and takes time. it can only work out when all plans are laid out on the table, so to speak, with transparency and room for (counter)arguments. ask any housewife about planing ;-))
This is illiterate about both Plato and Von Hayek. Been think of unsubscribing for awhile. Glad I didn't pay.
I'm extremely satisfied with my paid subscription. I'm looking to do more to assist Matt et al.
Your argument boils down to this (and I see it commonly): a counter-argument entirely without substance.
Mandville noting even crime stimulates the economy doesn't mean he didn't advocate a legal system to restrain crime. Such LaRouche nonsense.
Crime does not stimulate the economy. Broken window fallacy writ large.
Yes. Thanks for correcting me. Overall the broken window fallacy is correct.
However, economic activity follows, ie."the seen". The improvements that could have happened but for the broken window are "unseen."
However, my point stands. The advocates of laissez-faire advocated suppressing crime contrary to LaRouche, et al.
This article does not make the case that Mandeville was opposed to crime prevention. It makes the case that Mandeville considered humans to be naturally amoral, or even immoral, and that the only good a system of morality had was to restrain the masses.
Further, it shows that Mandeville propagated the idea that humans, and therefore human economy, were driven solely by natural lust, ie animal spirits. Which puts him ideologically in the camp of the globalist oligarchy.
Agree or disagree, but that seems to be the point regarding Mandeville.
Lying that advocates of laissez faire had no plans for a legal system restraining crime invalidates your whole essay. LaRouche nonsense. Von Mises called it planning for freedom in his book by that title. Spencer made it clear as did Rothbard.
I wonder if that Mandeville poem was the inspiration for today's "Common Good", since these were the last two words of it.
In Companies House, Hellfire Ltd was established in September 2024 and The Hellfire Club Creative Limited established in 2020 and dissolved without providing accounts. A common director is named as Benjamin Charles Donald Mills. I suspect this is a composite name. He has multiple registered identities, which compromises audits and KYC checks. This puts the public at risk to money laundering and terrorism financing. I've been writing a compliance report on this linked directorate, which I will publish shortly.
Matthew,
Please correct Hapsburg to Habsburg
Overview from Nisargadatta Maharaj
"The point is that man freed from his fetters is morality personified. Such a man therefore does not need any moralistic injunctions in order to live righteously. Free a man from his bondage and thereafter everything else will take care of itself. On the other hand, man in his unredeemed state cannot possibly live morally, no matter what moral teaching he is given. It is an intrinsic impossibility, for his very foundation is immorality. That is, he lives a lie, a basic contradiction: functioning in all his relationships as the separate entity he believes himself to be, whereas in reality no such separation exists. His every action therefore does violence to other 'selves' and other 'creatures,' which are only manifestations of the unitary consciousness. So Society had to invent some restraints in order to protect itself from its own worst excesses and thereby maintain some kind of status quo. The resulting arbitrary rules, which vary with place and time and therefore are purely relative, it calls 'morality,' and by upholding this man-invented 'idea' as the highest good–oftentimes sanctioned by religious 'revelation' and scriptures, society has provided man with one more excuse to disregard the quest for liberation or relegate it to a fairly low priority in his scheme of things."
Matthew.
While we believe in centralized (as well as decentralized) planning, radical Marxists do not want to run everything “from the top down”. Don't dismiss us so casually with these put-downs. We are democratic, hard as that may be for you to believe (steeped as you seem to be in anti-communist ideology)
I am friends with many good practical people who consider themselves communist, and there are even agreements I have with them on various elements of national political economic systems, valuing productive powers of labor, industrial progress, workers rights, and standing against imperialism etc. However, these Marxists tend to be people who also are principally pragmatic good people who look for the useful reasonable things within Marx's writings, and leave the bad irrational stuff, which radical Marxists ideologically embrace, since they treat Marx like a religious text instead of a theoretician who is open to criticism. So when I refer to the term "radical Marxist", I'm referring to those who are ideologically committed to ALL elements and fundamental axioms of the Engels-Marx Das Capital and broader Dialectic Materialism, Feuerbachian assumptions and Hegelian axioms too which were promoted within the systemic worldview of Marx and Engels. As far as I can see it, these core axioms which I would consider destructive and which ultimately demand a utilitarian approach to a mechanistic and destructive form of top down management at the cost of the individual creative powers are 1) the assumption that private property and especially private ownership within the productive forces should be maintained (ie: zero entrepreneurialism permitted), 2) enforcement of a naive and mathematical concept of equal outcomes, 3) the abolishment of religion within all 'scientifically managed' systems, and finally 4) the assumption of an underlying invariant belief in class struggle as a fundamental law shaping all tension which carries with it certain core assumptions about the intrinsic corruption of human nature of those who have affluence, and intrinsic need for permanent revolution by the proletariate without any ability to acknowledge the principle of a harmony of interests as promoted by the American System school of Leibniz, Franklin, Hamilton, Clay, Carey, and I would say Xi Jinping today. As far as I can tell, entreprenneurialism, private ownership, a tendency to embrace a religious life are natural things that individuals would tend to embrace if left to their own. So to restate, I'm not against top down planning, but I'm quite committed to the systems that place fundamental value on personal individual freedom and personal initiative, personal happiness, and personal ownership while simultaneously valuing the General Welfare of a nation and humanity as a whole.