Kind of reminds me of my feelings toward Noam Chomsky. I’ve long admired his work in linguistics, and sometimes he’s even good on foreign policy matters, but once he gets into political philosophy or economics all of the sudden he’s a complete dullard.

Well, at least he recognised the danger of centralised power. I suspect if he had contemplated this a bit more he would’ve had to delete the rest of the essay.

In my personal experience, those who excel in one field of knowledge usually falter in every other one. I guess that the time that it takes nowadays to internalize the vast body of knowledge of one single field crowds out the time that may be dedicated to any other field of knowledge. In other words, I trust the man on the street more than any expert on random subjects.

Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism?

No Albert, it is not.

Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.

In other words, if Al’s coercive heavily centralized planned economy actually comes into being, human beings will be ever more happy and willing to violate each other’s rights, and take ever less responsibility for their own actions.
His physics papers were perfectly coherent. Why so sloppy on politics?

Einstein was a very smart guy but he’s been lionized by pop culture. A careful study of the history surrounding relativity shows that it is very likely Einstein, at best, compiled, copied and relied upon the work of others (Poincarre and Hilbert, especially) and took credit for it more effectively. The world at that time was looking for celebrities and Einstein fit the bill perfectly.

It is documented that he was unable to perform the 4 dimensional maths necessary to elaborate on relativity and relied on his friend, Grossman for this. He was not a principled person as shown by his chaotic personal life. So, it was not out of character for him to lie or steal the work of others and, frankly, it’s extremely common in the world of science, just as it is everywhere humans are involved.

Later, Einstein argued that aspects of quantum mechanics were wrong and spent the rest of his life trying to prove it. He was not successful and today, QM is seen as the better theory (although it is not completely inconsistent with relativity). He did not get a Nobel prize for relativity as many people think.

Even though he was smart, he would not have been infallible. One recalls the amazingly inept kidnap and murder by Leopold and Loeb in Chicago in the 1920′s. Leopold was a genius with an IQ somewhere around 200 but his quest to commit the “perfect crime” was staggeringly inept and just plain stupid. “Smart” people do dumb things, too.

On social issues, it’s very hard to “win” a debate or “prove” a point because we’re dealing with human behavior, which cannot be quantified as in maths. Einstein’s views on social issues were like those of so many liberals throughout time who seem to pine for a perfect world as characterized by Rodney King’s plea: “Can’t we all just get along?”

Sadly, we cannot just get along because that is contrary to human nature. You might as well believe in Santa Claus. Once you accept that fact, then you can see that you can never safely cede power to “The Man” because it’s just like the camel’s nose…

Nicely stated, organized. But your coda was inconsistent.
“Sadly, we cannot just get along because that is contrary to human nature.”
I must disagree and return the contrarian volley — our ability to get along is our differentiation from mere brutes, and proof that human nature is a beautiful miracle. As recently departed Ray Bradbury once said, (paraphrasing by memory), “What is amazing is not how much we’ve accomplished but, rather, that we accomplished anything at all.”
The remarkable W. Edmunds Deming correctly eschewed the “competition” characterization for success, insisting that it is “collaboration” that has marked greatest business successes.
We most certainly do get along. But as you say, we don’t need government enslavement from “The Man”.
Oh, in some irony it just occurred to me, remembering Ray; “The Man” was one of his great stories, where the usage of the noun referred not to the power of the enslaving government but, rather, to spirituality and salvation. A little digression there, sorry.
I enjoyed reading your post.

“I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child.”

Good luck with that!

Nah, Chomsky’s linguistics are crap, too . I prefer Dan Everett’s views on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Everett

Don’t worry, he’s pinned that label on his lapel too.

Brings me back… many years ago he was the keynote, at a small conference on the unfolding, young Internet, policy-making and technology. After filling his soft belly with the catered meal, which was surprisingly good for hotel banquet cuisine, he proceeded with his usual diatribe on third world hunger. And all through my Chicken Francaise I thought I would soon hear insight on the new bridge of communications, linguistic barriers crumbling, the significance of technological evolution. Instead he was delivering a scolding! Some poverty metrics were thrown about with characteristic snarky bitterness, sarcasm and intonations that maybe “we” (gotta love that “we” stuff) could perhaps top the latest report with yet another million dying souls. The “we” always referred to the ‘US” (not sure if he meant “us” in the audience, certainly he meant Bush the elder, and the haves in society, sans himself of course).

I was thinking silently, “Hey, hold on. I can’t speak for all the other ‘we’-folk in this audience, but I can tell you with certainty that I didn’t starve anyone. In fact, I handed a homeless guy two bucks as I walked the cobblestone block to get here. Yeah, yeah, it probably went for liquor but I was in a hurry and they said you were speaking.”

Anyway, there I was, stuck in the middle of the room, conference chair legs entangled like a Twister game, and tables situated like sardines in a can — no avenues to take my porcelain coffee cup and meander into the hallway, or to my car. So I was trapped, listening to his sophomoric and feigned outcry, after which everyone seemed to applaud like the audiences who were mesmerized by Chauncey Gardiner. In crude defiance, I was reaching for another biscotti.

And Noam? Well, after he sat down, he was helping himself to the dessert too.

Thanks! Agreed about working together.

“I’ve tried to read … incomprehensible gibberish”

Well, linguistics certainly isn’t a subject for everybody. In fact, out of all of the higher disciplines that interest me, linguistics is by far the most difficult.

Pinker sometimes makes it easier for the layman to understand, but not much. However, he too is one of those guys that is just atrocious on economic and political matters.

The good news is that Richard Feynman came across as a libertarian in his thinking.

On what planet was this?

“It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought…”

No, it’s other individuals who provide these things. “Society” itself is a non-thing.

“I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production…”

Fine but I guess he was unfamiliar with employee-owned companies. Or worker pension funds that are shareholders in companies. Just about everyone today is at some level a part owner of the means of production. Capitalism is rather democratic actually.

“… nowhere have we really overcome … “the predatory phase” of human development.”

And we won’t under socialism either. We can’t expect humans to evolve into moral beings by edict or by waving a magic wand. Only by trial and error, action and affect, risk and reward (or loss) can humans be expected to learn and grow no matter how painful the process for some.

“Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development…”

Intent and outcomes are two different things that Einstein apparently failed to appreciate. I can tie feathers to my arms with the real purpose of taking flight, but jump off a tall building and the outcome will fall fatally short of ideal.

Einstein – like all collectivists and socialists – had a blind spot with respect to political power. He took for granted that people possessing power will of course do the right thing and be just and noble but history teaches us the opposite is true. Intrinsic to all humans (it’s in our genes) is abusing political power – no one can be trusted with it.

Notice that nowhere in his essay did Einstein offer an actual political model that would satisfy – even generally – his lofty aims. His words are an appeal to emotion – not reason. Maybe he would join the Zeitgeist Movement if he were alive today.

But socialism is another version of “morality by edict.” No different in substance than conservatives trying to outlaw vice but socialists want to force people to be fair, altruistic and charitable. They don’t see the contradiction that using violence to force people to do what they want is by far the greater injustice and instead promotes the opposite of what they intend.

We humans have to evolve naturally and this is really only achievable with the principle of equal freedom. Under such a political arrangement, people will learn over time that altruism and charity are good, that dealing in good faith is good, that treating people fairly is good and that cooperation gives us the best possible outcomes. We will learn because the people who hold to these values will prosper and those who don’t won’t (without political power to protect them).

This can’t be accomplished by edict. And certainly will not be possible with any traditional political system where power is held by a few individuals. Like so many others, Einstein was a political wishful thinker. The outcome of taking such an approach though can be fatal for us all.

Einstein ended by asking “… how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?”

Good questions he chose not to answer. Oh well, back to thinking about space-time I guess. I’ll pose one more, “How can we have our cake and eat it too?” The socialist thinks we can without doing any actual thinking.

Then again, maybe Einstein was right and speed of gravity equals the speed of light…

“Chinese scientists find evidence for speed of gravity”

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Chinese_scientists_find_evidence_for_speed_of_gravity_999.html

The paper:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11434-012-5603-3

Abstract: We have found that the current practical Newtonian formula for the gravity tide of the Earth implies a hypothesis that gravity travels at the speed of light; furthermore, we have derived and solved the propagation equation of gravity using the observation data of Earth tides from Shiquanhe and Wushi, after correction of phase lag due to the anelasticity of the Earth, and found that the speeds of gravity are from 0.93 to 1.05 times the speed of light with a relative error of about 5%. This provides first set of strong evidences to show that the speed of gravity is the same as the speed of light.

“Einstein was no genius.” This is such an important point. Our society and the media (entertainment and news) have pumped into our minds that scientists are broadly intelligent (and wise), when they are generally narrowly intelligent. In my reading (especially of the “New Atheists” like Richard Dawkins), scientists can be *terrible* logicians and as philosophically dense as anyone, Perhaps even MORE dense than the average person. They’ve been told so often that they’re intelligent that they believe that means they are broadly intelligent. Thus, they are slower to entertain the possibility that they are wrong about something. It’s tough to find a group that acts more intellectually superior than a bunch of scientists.

Joe Sobran wrote: “… philosopher Sidney Hook recalled in his autobiography, Out of Step,
that getting Einstein to criticize the Soviet Union was like pulling teeth.” Obviously very consistent with the essay

Natural law is not a widely accepted theory, and it is even rejected by many libertarians. Essentially what you’re saying is that there is a Universal Ethic, which is obviously false.

I can’t believe he actually included the old “technology causes unemployment” bit! The statement “producers are trying to deprive each other out of the fruits of their labor,” is the same thing as saying that the economy is a zero-sum game.

Maybe I’m taking for granted how easy it is now to access sources like Tom Woods who have trained us to spot these fallacies, but it should have been fairly obvious that there was a lot more wealth to go around in 1949 than there was in 1849 and that the economy was able to sustain a much higher population. He must have read those talking points in some rag and never once stopped to consider how patently absurd they are.

You are merely stating an assertion, and suffice it to say, making such an assertion does not make it so. Worse, it doesn’t at all help the case for a position supporting natural rights to argue by assertion, it instead very much hurts the case.

To avoid confusion, I am going to treat natural law and natural rights as equivalent, because it is clear that is how you are using the terms. However, to be clear, not all theorists do this.

As most libertarians and natural rights theorists are well aware, Mises himself rejected natural rights. Of course, he was a utilitarian, so this is not unsurprising. He was also very cognizant of the fact that rights (natural or otherwise) did not exist throughout all time, that it was something arrived at through the process of social development. Thus, this insight of his (a correct insight, I might add) contradicts your assertion that natural rights are “universal values throughout time and space”, because they obviously didn’t exist at all times and in all places.

Here’s a decent quote lifted from the Quotable Mises:

“This, then, is freedom in the external life of man that he is independent of the arbitrary power of his fellows. Such freedom is no natural right. It did not exist under primitive conditions. It arose in the process of social development and its final completion is the work of mature Capitalism.” ~Ludwig von Mises

Here too is a link to another example of Mises rejecting natural rights on utilitarian grounds:

http://www.commonlawreview.com/2008/05/mises-on-natural-rights.html

Of course, even those who support natural rights are familiar with its limitations. Here the problem is addressed from 3 primary presentations of natural rights theory. Another problem discussed is that of value judgement, as formed through the dynamic of the “ought vs is” argument. The author is libertarian theorist and professor David Osterfeld:

http://mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_5.pdf

Here is a talk given by Thomas Woods explaining the history of natural rights theory, as well as the different theorists who attempted to correct the shortfalls of their predecessors. Granted, Tom doesn’t give his own opinion on the subject so much as show how different theorists tried to universalize the theory. However, he does admit that there are those that reject the theory, as well as those who reach the same conclusions but from different philosophical groundings (such as utilitarianism). Obviously, Dr. Woods is a proponent of natural rights, but since I know that he is incredibly intellectually honest, I am sure that he is well aware of some of the limitations associated with the theory.

http://mises.org/community/groups/natural_rights/blog/archive/2010/04/10/tom-woods-on-natural-rights.aspx

And then of course, one cannot talk about the universalizing of natural rights without discussion of Hoppe’s ‘Argumentation Ethics’, whereby Hoppe attempts to prove universality by use of argumentation and contradiction. In fact, what prompted him to do this was the realization of the limitations associated with Rothbards theory of ethics regarding natural rights theory. Many libertarians see his (Hoppe’s) theory as the best defense of natural rights as a universal theory, however there are also many libertarian theorists who see it as absolutely laughable due to a confusion between ontology and ethics on Hoppe’s part.

Linked below is a challenge to Hoppe’s argumentation ethics by Robert P. Murphy and Gene Callahan (keep in mind that Callahan was still a libertarian when this paper was written). Both Murphy and Callahan state outright that they both are proponents of natural rights, but clearly they understand the limitations of the theory, and even more clear is that they don’t think that Hoppe’s theory solves the problem of universality.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_3.pdf

David Gordon is another example of a libertarian who supports natural rights. In fact, he has stated that without morality, rights cannot exist. However, it is clear from his review of Stefan Molyneux’s book ‘Universally Preferable Behavior’, that he understands that a universal ethic has not yet been discovered (though he has a favorable opinion of argumentation ethics).

http://mises.org/daily/6101/The-Molyneux-Problem

* * *

I too am a proponent of natural rights, in fact I am a Rothbardian in this respect (and I obviously find Hoppe’s argument to be very compelling). However, part of being engaged in philosophy is not only understanding the strengths of your philosophy, but also understanding the weaknesses. As such, I fully understand that natural rights is based upon a theory of ethics, which is turn based upon a value-judgement. Since value-judgements are not universal (nor are they intrinsic), this also means that ethics are not universal (nor intrinsic), thus natural rights is not universal (nor intrinsic); at least not in terms of the current arguments.

The bulk of the work performed by natural rights theorists has been attempting to prove the universality of natural rights theory, and it is my opinion that both Rothbard and Hoppe are probably the thinkers that have gotten closest to doing this (Locke’s argument leaves much to be desired). However, I have no illusions about the fact that they have not fully realized their goal. It takes a certain amount of intellectual honesty to say such a thing, especially when you wish something to be so. But such is the state of affairs for one who seeks truth in ethical and political philosophy.

Obviously, I believe libertarian theory to be the most correct as well as the most ethical, which is why I am a libertarian. But if another theory comes along proving to be more correct and ethical, stripping myself of the libertarian label would not be something that would be met with any hesitation on my part. Truth always trumps ideology.

Good reply.

I’d only add that it’s impossible to have any discussion on the rights of man without considering man. In this sense, Hoppe is quite right to bring ontology to the discussion. For if man is not essentially free, it does not make sense to talk about his rights.