That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen

[MoonShadow]

Looking forward next year to using Rothbard's Conceived in Liberty to teach American History.  The kids are going to hate me.

No kidding.  My wife & I homeschool our kids too, but I wouldn't do that to them.

[muyuu]

Off-topic: Why am I seeing this?

I just assumed it was some sort of automated recommendation.

Surely this forum software isn't that smart... 

[johnyj]

Bastiat is the greatest. I have a man-crush on him.

The concept of the unseen is one of the most important economic concepts for people to grasp. Consider the government-built sports stadium. Hundreds of millions of dollars in cost. When it's built, the people see it and marvel at the wondrous building, and thank the government for creating something so great. They do this because they SEE it.

What is unseen, however, is all the goods and services that did not come into existence, because the resources which would've been used to purchase those things was taxed away to build the stadium. But, because it's unseen and distributed over many people and over much time, the population doesn't realize the cost, and instead they stand in naive admiration of the sports stadium, and lavish praise upon the government which has likely made them all poorer.

It is a phenomenon present in almost every government program, and it deceives the public in perpetuity. If only people would read Bastiat in school 

True, most of the people only care about what is happening now, and what is happening on themselves, that's the reason that long term project which charge a little on each person usually can generate huge return. Insurance for example

[foggyb]

I find it refreshing that Bastiat is not afraid to give credit where it is due:

“We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life – physical, intellectual, and moral life.”

“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”

[hazek]

Off-topic: Why am I seeing this?

I just assumed it was some sort of automated recommendation.

It's so distracting and tempting... For some reason it reminds me of: http://youtu.be/Mvxe04wGmTw
 

You guys should click it like I did, the forum becomes much much more enjoyable that way.

[frisco2]

I find it refreshing that Bastiat is not afraid to give credit where it is due:

“We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life – physical, intellectual, and moral life.”

“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”

Well, it comes not from God, it comes from reality:
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-fall/ayn-rand-theory-rights.asp

[foggyb]

Well, it comes not from God, it comes from reality:

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

Amazing insight from a book written 2000 years ago.

That which is not seen does not appear, cannot exist except at the hand a God-creator. Else how could it exist? Things that do not appear, or abstract thought, can only come from a thinking mind. There are no other sources of abstract thought, and since you claim that human rights exist apart from a human mind, you have conceded that God does exist, and that all things are created by him.

[herzmeister]

“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”

Only as much property as one can immediately protect is "natural". If someone claims to to own ridiculous amount of land, there'll be disputes to that claim.

[MoonShadow]

“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”

Only as much property as one can immediately protect is "natural". If someone claims to to own ridiculous amount of land, there'll be disputes to that claim.

While this is somewhat true, it's a natural law that in the absence of any established cultural rules on property, societies tend toward a known set of such property rules.  If you stake a claim on unused/undeveloped land, and start to work it as such, some other people will respect that claim; but property isn't about what you can defend, it's about agreement.  For example, if there were no laws on the matter, and you moved onto the abandoned farmland a few miles from me.  I wasn't working that land and didn't claim it, because I couldn't do anything with it anyway.  So you start working it, and I respect your claim on that land and the products of your work.  Not because I must, but because by respecting your claim I can expect the same from you, you will respect my claim on the portion that I have been working.  This is how society really works, but on a much larger scale.  A land deed is simply a document that states that a government, acting on behalf of society at large, is honoring a claim of ownership.

You can watch this very natural set of property rules in their most basic form by watch toddlers in a playroom.  Whoever has a particular toy and is presently playing with it 'owns' it for the moment, and any attempt by others to take it away will result in not just resistance, but cries for help.  Yet, if the first child gets up and walks away from the toy, another could come in and take that toy and stake his new claim, and often expect it to be respected by the other kids and the adults alike.  After all, it does come naturally.

EDIT: And you can tell that the claim of ownership is known by the kid who takes toys from others, even if he doesn't respect it, because he never calls for help to take away the toy and doesn't expect the adults to help him do so; and when the child who feels that he has been wronged squeals for intervention he does expect to receive aid, while the attacker will often lie about the facts or simply look quilty.  Because in truth, he knows he was wrong.

[johnyj]

You can watch this very natural set of property rules in their most basic form by watch toddlers in a playroom.  Whoever has a particular toy and is presently playing with it 'owns' it for the moment, and any attempt by others to take it away will result in not just resistance, but cries for help.  Yet, if the first child gets up and walks away from the toy, another could come in and take that toy and stake his new claim, and often expect it to be respected by the other kids and the adults alike.  After all, it does come naturally.

I like this way to trace the origin of some human behavior, and have you noticed any differences between different children? Some might resist, some might not, some might take it by force, some might not, etc...

[herzmeister]

While this is somewhat true, it's a natural law that in the absence of any established cultural rules on property, societies tend toward a known set of such property rules.

[...]

Left-ish folks claim property to be the source of all evil. I believe not necessarily so if it's hard- and well-earned, but think about certain children and grand-children of wealthy families who are arrogant about their status and don't really contribute anything valuable to society. I guess that's what the term "conservative" literally means, they want to "conserve" their inherited status quo.

[MoonShadow]

You can watch this very natural set of property rules in their most basic form by watch toddlers in a playroom.  Whoever has a particular toy and is presently playing with it 'owns' it for the moment, and any attempt by others to take it away will result in not just resistance, but cries for help.  Yet, if the first child gets up and walks away from the toy, another could come in and take that toy and stake his new claim, and often expect it to be respected by the other kids and the adults alike.  After all, it does come naturally.

I like this way to trace the origin of some human behavior, and have you noticed any differences between different children? Some might resist, some might not, some might take it by force, some might not, etc...

Of course I see variation, but I see a pattern as well.  Don't you?

[foggyb]

You can watch this very natural set of property rules in their most basic form by watch toddlers in a playroom.  Whoever has a particular toy and is presently playing with it 'owns' it for the moment, and any attempt by others to take it away will result in not just resistance, but cries for help.  Yet, if the first child gets up and walks away from the toy, another could come in and take that toy and stake his new claim, and often expect it to be respected by the other kids and the adults alike.  After all, it does come naturally.

I like this way to trace the origin of some human behavior, and have you noticed any differences between different children? Some might resist, some might not, some might take it by force, some might not, etc...

I say some kids (and some adults) voluntarily forfeit their rights sometimes. Out of fear, apathy, or some other form of angst.
Does forfeiting your rights mean you had no rights to begin with? No. Its impossible to forfeit something you didn't have a valid title to, in the first place.

[MoonShadow]

While this is somewhat true, it's a natural law that in the absence of any established cultural rules on property, societies tend toward a known set of such property rules.

[...]

Left-ish folks claim property to be the source of all evil. I believe not necessarily so if it's hard- and well-earned, but think about certain children and grand-children of wealthy families who are arrogant about their status and don't really contribute anything valuable to society. I guess that's what the term "conservative" literally means, they want to "conserve" their inherited status quo.

They say such things, but notice that when it comes down to it, they act differnetly.  Take Occupy in Cali for instance.  They've recently 'occupied' a Berkley research farm on the argument that what they are doing with the property isn't as noble as what they would do with it, but then they take over the property and proceed to act as if it is their own and expect others to honor their claim.  It's a contradiction. 

[Boussac]

I lucid article on economics coming from 1850s

"That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen"
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

+1 for citing Bastiat

That which is seen = politics
That wich is not seen = economics

[frisco2]

They say such things, but notice that when it comes down to it, they act differnetly.  Take Occupy in Cali for instance.  They've recently 'occupied' a Berkley research farm on the argument that what they are doing with the property isn't as noble as what they would do with it, but then they take over the property and proceed to act as if it is their own and expect others to honor their claim.  It's a contradiction.  

Ayn Rand has a good article on this occupy stuff in her book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", where she talks about the Berkeley Student Rebellion, in the 60s.

[frisco2]

Petition to create an independent Objectivist State:

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=23489

[RodeoX]

If God is the source of our rights, them which God are you talking about? There are hundreds of Gods with highly divergent opinions on what rights we should have.