wow...

It never ceases to amaze me how these economics types regurgitate economic theory (and that's all it is--a theory) in the same way that evangelicals regurgitate the bible.

Private ownership in their theory is about wealth maximization. It is not always in the best interest of profit to protect the environment. If it were, we'd already be doing it. Think about the rain forests, which are being destroyed by private ownership. That's happening because it's more profitable to tear down the trees and plant crops and raise cattle on that land than it is to simply let it be.

As far as the argument about letting lawsuits be the great equalizer, I hate to agree with Rafe, but I do. It's not that simple to say to the small business owner or private citizen, "sue that evil corporation". The fact that corporations, like Walmart, have deep pockets is what makes them so difficult to sue. Mr. Block may not be aware of the significant barriers to litigation that exist in Canada, particularly that any litigant bears the risk of having the opposing party's legal costs awarded against them if they lose.

As far as the slavery argument goes, it's so hyperbolic that I can't even take it seriously. Give me a hypothetical that is somewhere in the realm of reality, and then I might be willing to consider the idea of voluntary slavery (which is still an oxymoron).

I don't particularly want to be a socialist, but people like Block push me ever closer whenever I read or hear arguments such as his.

Economic theory and economic reality

People who live in the real world, like Rafe Mair, as opposed to the pretend world, like Mr Block, realise that economic theory is different from economic reality. In reality, the externalities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality) are almost never taken into account in the pricing of a public good like a river. Simply put : Are the all the costs and benefits of a privately owned river all attributable to the owner, or are there indirect consequences on third parties? Of course, the latter is the reality. The sooner the ideologues openly recognize this, the better of we'll all be.

Libertarianism - The Opiate of the Masters

The bankruptcy of neo-Liberal economics coupled with libertarian corporatism makes Hurricane Katrina a case-book laissz-faire examplar.

The Mississippi River is now under new management - Obama's.

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/mar/14/00017/

Everything works on paper

An idealist is one who, on noticing that roses smell better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.

H. L. Mencken

dumping my garbage in my own property

Let's see, now, I own a piece of land, and I own a piece of a river. So I dump my banana skins on the land, and I dump my apple cores in the river. Next morning, I go check my land. The banana skins are still there, browner, but still there. I go to my piece of the river. Gee, where did my apple cores go? Oh man, from now on I'm dumping everything into the river.
(I wonder if there is a way that I can use the air above my property the same way?)

Just off the topic, when the business corps, which exist primarily to accumulate wealth, fund something like a Fraser Inst, do their tax forms mention their contributions to this ' think tank', (with official senior fellows and whatnot). Does their largesse impact their tax position?
If it does, then could we say that Fraser Inst is indirectly publically funded?

Are Libertarians all Extremists?

As for a privately owned river being cared for better than a publicly owned one...there are lousy land owners and there would be lousy river owners and once the river is a cesspool no one would want to buy it and that would leave the government (or more accurately, you and me) left to clean it up. Nothing much different from what is happening now.

As for slavery, I think we all need to take a heads up here because the Libertarians and Conservatives would like nothing more than to bust the unions and by busting the unions and making people afraid of losing their jobs to cheap foreign labour the consequences are going to be slavery.

Oh and...

being a poor parent in a Libertarian world doesn't make much sense does it? I'd rather die myself before reproducing for the overlords.

This is delusion

One simply cannot ignore the factual errors which are cited in defense of this insanity.

First, people simply do not take better care of things they own than they do of commons. They don't. Rather, they get all high and mighty about how the great relationship called ownership gives them unabridged rights to do what they like without interference, with their "property".

Store garbage in the river? Why not? It costs money to treat it. Screw you, anyway, it's my river and I'll do whatever I want to it, so there. It's by far the most common reaction to any suggestion from outside that people treat their holdings better.

The buffalo all killed because nobody owned them? You have to be kidding. The buffalo were slaughtered to starve out their owners so the land they grazed on could be stolen after they were gone. Replaced by cows because the survivors among their owners might claim buffalo as their own property at some later date.

The idea of selling yourself to a pervert because somebody has told you you must pay a hundred million dollars or your child will be killed is nothing more than a fetishist's fantasy. I have to wonder whether Mr. Block imagines himself in this relationship, when he pictures it in his heated imagination.

And of course that raises the question; in which position? Slave or master?

strange arguments

The argument for free speech is being made by Mr. Block, who by using is has exposed libertarianism, in its extreme form, as a utopian fantasy.

There are some basic problems with his arguments.

Privatization - the owners of the rivers use the 'resource' to maximize their return (if they are libertarian MBAs, which in fact might be a redundancy). If there is greater economic benefit (short term, of course) in killing the fish to increase mill profits, that is good for society. Of course, they are murdering the fish, which is bad only because the fish never sold themselves into slavery to save the mill.

Slavery - well, if it is illegal to murder fish (which I think it is), then it is probably illegal to sell someone the ability to torture you. Which, if you are selling yourself as a slave, you are able to. Can a slave owner force the father to tell his child not to seek medical help? Can i sell someone the ability to abuse my rights as upheld by libertarian rules?

Sounds fishy to me.

Tobacco

Also - the obvious example of litigation is the tobacco industry - who has made the credible threat of annihilation through legal procedure for anyone who claims they know their product is a carcinogen.

It kept the entire media industry at bay for decades until one whistleblower came forward. That helped deteriorate whistleblower protection, of course.

Scary

And this is an example of one of the Fraser Institute's top minds? This is the kind of gibberish that Premier Campbell relies on to make decisions affecting the whole province? We are in big, big trouble B.C..

What is ownership anyways?

The big flaw is that something can only be "owned" if society allows it to be. What happens when just a few people own everything? Will people put up with that forever and ever. Eventually they'll be an revolution.

The number of companies that look on fines due to breaking of environmental laws as a "cost of doing business," or the multinationals that look at the cost - benefit analysis of recalling a faulty product or dealing with law suits is proof that you can't rely on suing as a realistic means of regulating individuals or organizations in thinking beyond their unique interests.

Democratic societies generally don't want neo-liberal policies anyways ... they just benefit too few people.

Can I point out something

Can I point out something that seems to be the elephant in the room? I'm all for allowing people who are called out in an opinion piece, as Block was, the opportunity to defend themselves. But may I remind you, Tyee editors, that my understanding of this site's mandate is to provide an alternative to the hegemony of Canwest and their ilk who dominate BC's MSM, not to mention doing a credible job of investigative journalism, which seems to be going out of style. Do we really need to see the Tyee become another mouthpiece for a think tank that caters to the crazies of the right?

And of course, the logical counterargument to Block's argument about slavery is that we don't live under an unfettered capitalist regime. In our society, there is no reason why any one individual should need to have access to the kind of money he is talking about. A more plausible real-life situation might be to propose selling oneself if that person were unable to come up with protection money, but I would argue that if the police can't protect law-abiding individuals, there's a problem with law enforcement, not with our inability to sell ourselves into slavery.

Right on Kaz!

If I want Walter Block's opinion I'll read one of Canwest's rags. Once they print alternative opinions and cover the BC news without the usual bias, I might think the Tyee has an obligation to offer him space. Only in the perverted capitalist ideology does it make sense to give what the people own over to the private sector to then gouge us for ever on its use. Resource pimps all of them and not much better than the real pimps exploiting women.

Not a single libertarian in

Not a single libertarian in the world was raised in an environment where they weren't smothered and bossed around a ton. Their life was about constriction, so they're forever talking enslavement and ferocious resistance to it. Their language, their examples, are always harsh, brutal, jarring. Rarely any sense of calm ease, warmth, spirit of community. It is not so out of place for them, however, to find home amongst the Tyee' feisty fish. Honestly, the harshness is in Mair as well. The feel of his writing is not so different from what you encounter from libertarians, and he is not to be trusted, either.

Ownership

So, according to Block's theory, if you 'own' a slave you will treat him/her with care and respect. There appears to be a bit of a contradiction with his theory.

Following the line of thought of Chris H.

From the article:

Private ownership of property has one major flaw: namely, how does one acquire said property? Does one buy it from another party? If so, how did that party acquire said property? Etc, etc......the point being that, at some point, this privately owned property was not owned by anyone. So just what is the mechanism for converting "non-owned" (I won't even say "publicly-owned") property into a private holding? Does one simply TAKE it and keep it by force of arms (either directly or through some agency -- but then, what gives said agency the right to hire themselves into the service of the taker, for the purpose of what essentially is conquest? Everything I have read about Libertsrianism suggests that they advocate a non-violent means of acquisition. But how exactly is this possible, without acknowledging that the original "ownership" was made through conquest, and the use of or threat of the use of, arms?

ah the good life where everything is up for sale

Great to see these blockheads come out to play with the rest of us. Of course they want to commodify everything, our water, our air and they will even enslave our children if they get the chance to do so.

The argument that ownership means better stewardship is a joke. Have you noticed Mr. Block - that less that 5 percent of the people on the planet own most of everything? Have you seen the crap holes they leave behind when they are done extracting their hefty profits? Why is it their freedom to buy everything costs the rest of us so much? Have you taken a moment to reflect on cultures where ownership was not central to status? Yikes, keep spilling your sludge though - the more you reveal the more likely folks will wake up.

personally I am glad they let him defend himself

He just vindicates Rafe and makes himself look slightly crazy anyway.

Better to air the ridiculous theories so we can all see how ludicrous they are.

Author gets his premises all wrong

Two points to think about.

re: Pollution.

When one pisses in the pool, everyone using the pool has to deal with it. And we all use the pool.

re: Ownership

Water, unlike land, moves around the planet in various forms. It is like the air. To argue water ownership will give rise to protection better than non-ownership misses the point namely, water is a commons we all own. Non-ownership never arises. It is also wrong to assume even a thoughtful private interest, by default, represents the common interest.

In short, the pursuit of the almighty dollar for private profits is the only motivator this man believes has any merit. What a shame to see the world in this light.

Mr. Block is one of the

Mr. Block is one of the biggest fascist nutcases I've ever heard of under any ideological system. A typical, totally brainwashed neoclassical economic theorist, very similar to our Stevie Harper, totally ignorant of the fact that the economy and monetarism are totally opposite concepts that hardly ever meet.

He was interviewed on CBC radio at the time, back in the 80s, after his book was published, maintaining that he would privatize all rivers, lake and even the seas and the oceans as environmental protective measurs, which shows his abysmal ignorance and lack of practical experience. Everywhere we look in the interior, all we can see total environmental exploitation and destruction, usually by major corporations, trying to squeeze the last penny out for the next quarterly report and to please the stock speculators.

Where in hell has any major corporation ever paid the slightest attention to the environment and human lives and where, in the last 35 years, have real people benefited from this present criminal economic system , now on the verge of destroying the Earth and humanity?

What benefit did we get out of the present over 1000% inflation under the free money creation powers of the banks and all universities brainwashing students with the criminal neoclassical racket, collectivizing the Earth's resources and food supplies into the hands of a few corporate politbureaus?

This crime wave could be called "free eneterprise", licencing the search and destroy plans of criminals, but is it "private enterprise?"

What benefit have we received from the destruction of the family farm system and its replacement with agribiz kolkhozes? Or from the fraudulent "free trade" treaties, designed for the destruction of any level of democracy and its replacement by criminals taking over control with the free movement of the perceived power imaginary capital, "created" by some bank from the air?

In any case "Wealth can not be created, only taken from other sectors the environment and the future"

All economic actions are based on physical laws that can not be overturned by religious, or pseudo religious priesthoods, like Block and the rest of our so called "economists".

I would like to see any of these nutcases overturning the first and second laws of thermodynamics and Newton's laws on reaction and speed, all economic activities are based on.

We can see the results of their efforts in the climate change, growing poverty, loss of decision making powers and the death of some 30 million children every year by starvation, while the "private" owners of the resources of their countries are raking in obscene profits and executive salaries.

At least Block is now in New Orleans, so he can fight against "socialist" medicare.

Ed Deak, Big Lake.

What Planet

is this guy from? First of all there isn't voluntary slavery, Mr. Block head. Secondly, labour laws and litigation laws are changed to favour the party in power. Guess what? The liberals are in power and what did they do immediately after they were elected? They tore up "negotiated contracts" with their union employees. What makes this moron think it wouldn't happen if his so called "libertarian" buddies were elected? I bet it would be worse than a Communist state could possible be. We wouldn't have a government in power we would have a corporate government in power doing it's utmost to ensure we all become slaves of the corporations.

I have long said multinational corporations are the Commuinists in a suit. In fact they are much worse than communists.

It's all about trust Mr. Block et al.

Mr. Block,

In essence, it all comes down to a matter of trust. To be quite blunt, I for one trust Rafe Mair, but I do not trust you and your libertarian ilk. Time and time again people, corporations and governments who buy into your libertarian philosophy prove themselves to be self-serving and untrustworthy. Case in point, and the primary target of Rafe’s article you felt compelled to respond to (unconvincingly I’d like to add), Gordon Campbell. Campbell’s entire political career is rife with secrecy and clandestine dealings, deception, spin, blatant lies, and his office is currently under investigation for corruption and possibly breach of trust and obstruction of justice.

It’s all about trust!

Economics, shmeconomics

Mr. Block's reality and dreams--yes dreams--of what a free market can do, can achieve, simply underscores the paucity of thought and substance in this instance.

The concept of free market requires a balance of competitors, buyers, sellers, and goods.
The argument that an unfettered market, one free of government control etc... is more efficient holds only if no competitor can dominate the market; that is create a monopoly position.
Toothpicks by the very size of the market and the nature of the product may fall into that category(efficient and free market), but health care, education does not. Those two sectors--favorites for privatization--are not dynamic or "liquid" enough to create a market similar to toothpicks.
The same can be said for real estate, car sales and other market sectors. None of these markets are dynamic or Liquid enough to create a perpetual and level playing field for manufacturers, although we believe this given the financial numbers being bandied about.
Most people do not buy a car, or house every week, which would create a market with some equilibrium.

What is missing from the argument of markets--I am in favor of them--is the damage and upheaval done by collapsing markets( they have overheated or are obsolescent) to the labor force.
People are not like toothpicks--long shelf life, no emotional life, no bills to pay, mouths to feed...--and until economists are able to incorporate a theory, and reality, which has a human dimension, I am afraid that boom and bust is a natural (necessary part)of market behavior.

On last thing, free markets have a tendency to lurch between monopolistic behavior (Microsoft for awhile, Google now) and rigid bureaucratism; neither is desirable, an hence some regulating mechanism is needed.
For example. we do not spend a long time in the sun(=Sunburn) or too little(=lack of Vitamin D)
Similar such moderating mechanisms need to found to regulate market behavior.

The powers of Microsoft and

The powers of Microsoft and Google are chickenfeed to Cargill, or Monsanto plus a few more, now controlling the world's food supplies and humanity, ruining and stealing blind producers and consumers alike, stealing from all sides with price fixings and blackmail.

Look at the way the Canadian beef market is controlled, forcing ranchers into bankruptcies, while the prices in the stores are going up every day.

And now Stevie wants to sell off the grain marketing boards, breaking farmers, to give the multinational corporate mafia unlimited powers.

This is not a "marketplace", but a slave market Stalin couldn't even dream about.

Ed Deak.

Amazingly Naive

Libertarian ideas were considered novel and interesting in the 1970's. But with a little scholarly analysis, the aspects that were adopted by corporate industries became clearly nonsensical. There are a few "pure" libertarians, for whom the Fraser Institute and North America's oligarchs are repugnant and destructive. But we never hear from them (Noam Chomsky is one example). Instead, libertarianism has been hijacked by neocons, whether Mr. Block likes it or not, and its slippery concepts have been thrown around, willy nilly, to promote a highly rigid, uncompetitive oligarch. That writers such as Mr. Block and others are incapable of understanding this is a disappointment. Kudos to the Tyee for allowing Mr. Block to try and defend these kooky ideas.

What is the difference between a Libertarian and a Neo-Liberal?

None that I can see. The shock of many of the posters here is astounding to me. The BC Liberals, Federal Conservatives and Liberals (today, not historically) are all neo-liberal/libertarian parties.

Their basic policies are informed by libertarian ideology but dressed up in terms that is more palatable to the public.

The blind trust in the private sector is not far off from what Block is at least honest about. Take for example Block's ridiculous assertion that:

"If there were a private corporation that owned the Mississippi, you can bet your bottom dollar that this tragedy would not have occurred in the first place."

The how does Block explain the Bhopal, India disaster that killed 100,000+? Waht is the difference between Block's claim and the underlying Campbell/Harper and to a slightly lesser degree Ignatiaf assumptions that the private sector is more 'efficient' than the public sector?

In Neo-liberal/Libertarian terms, energy-healthcare-highways-bridges-telecommunications-banks ect are all better run by the private sector because they have self-interested goals. Even Alan Greenspan renounced this ridiculous and un-empirical wing-nut 'theory' when the financial sector crashed recently.

Maybe a few of you 'shocked' posters should pick up Naomi Klien's "The Shock Doctrine" and otehr books critical of Neo-liberal/Libertarian thought.

beyond reason

Libertarianism: one small step forward for lunacy, one giant step backward for humanity.

That such blatant ecological illiteracy still exists in today’s world is beyond reason. If this is the thinking that is informing those that are defining our path to the future, humanity is doomed to a world devoid of pleasure beyond that provided and controlled by the power of wealth. Humanity can look forward to a speedy extinction of all that defines community and the freedoms that allow the individual to seek pleasure from the benefits of community.

It was a mouth full

He talked about rivers, he talked about slavery but not once did he touch on the air we breath as it is also vitial to our well being and futures on this planet. How do you pacakage that or could the rivers and ocearns be seen along the same ways as vitial to life and therefore not a commodity to be disposed of citizens see fit. And the slavery thing why even go there as clearly its words falling of someones face rather than a well thought out plan benefiting the whole of humanity.

Fraser Institute

A right wing think tank....an oximoron if there ever was one!

libertarianism

Sure, let's design a system for the disribution of resources by identifying where the worst pillaging has already occurred and then employ the rationales of the pillagers as the bona fide imperatives around which the design will be constructed.
That there is no need to value or respect anything to which you don't personally possess a property right, that cash value trumps all, are self-evidently not universal principles or some irreducible elements of human nature. Rather, this is the contemporary politics of a delusional, self-obsessed, spectacularly unimaginative minority who have already caused harm beyond all relation to their number or the time they have had to wreak their havoc.

bullshit

This is utter bullshit. People do not take care of things that they own better. It's easy to drive down any street in any town and see houses that are cared for less than even the worst community center, public high school, or city park.

Equivalent to River

The Britannia Beach mine contamination is equivalent to a private owner spoiling a river. In this case, Howe Sound and the mill site has suffered from the leaching ("leeching" may be more appropriate) of heavy metal contamination.

Who paid for the cleanup on this severe contamination of the site? It was the taxpayers of BC.

Who gained from the clean-up? The current Campbell friendly owners of the property.

Will the current owners pay any compensation for remediation of the site? Absolutely not. All gains or profits will accrue to the owners and associated developers.

Economic Theories....

As a Graduate student in psychology, and a social scientist in training, it never ceases to amaze me that economists are able to continually assert simplistic truisms about so called "human nature", and make sweeeping statements about how the world works without challenge. The majority of these assertions have their roots in political/economic philosophers from 100+ years ago, who often developed there theories to justify the status quo, or to empower the emerging merchant/capitalist classes. They certainly did not rigorously and empirically investigate their claims.

Modern psychology (the science of human behaviour/thoughts/feelings/motivations/etc..) has become (or strives toward) a rigorous empirical science on these very issues. The simple fact is that human beings are very complex, and human behaviour is informed by innumerable genetic, biological, environmental, social, cultural, and individual factors that we are still a long way from fully comprehending. Indeed, one of the only "truisms" that we can confidently assert with our modern knowledge is that there are few if any universal higher-order (i.e., complex thoughts/behaviours/values/etc...) aspects of "human nature" at all!!!! Thus it seems as though the fundamental premises of much economic theory are demonstrably false, leaving only abstract economic models/calculations with no external validity (however, these models/calculations are wonderful for obfuscating and browbeating the non-expert public into accepting their assertions).

--------

In specific reference to the primary claim of this article (humans care for their private property). I'm left wondering if there are any appropriate real-world analogies to test that assertion........ Hmmmm, what is the one thing that absolutely every human "owns" and is in fact the most important piece of property that we will ever have? Answer - our physical body. So If this article's claim are even remotely true, we would expect to see the vast majority of people taking phenomenal care of their physical bodies. Is this the case? Obviously not. And why is this not the case? Because human behaviour is not as "simple" as this article (and many economists) would have us believe.

Cheers,

Pat

As for black liquor contamination.......

As for black liquor contamination......both white liqur and green liquor pulp mill pollution would cause more severe environmental damage.

Private good, Public bad. I'm not buying it Wally

Wally, echoing several of the previous writers, one couldn't say that private owners take care of their property better if you've ever had some of my ex-landlords. My experience suggests you can't squeeze a nickel for repairs out of them. As an example, I drove buy a duplex on 12th yesterday (near commercial) that had a plastic tarp on the flat roof. The tarp is old and frayed. Rather than fix the roof properly, the owner mickey moused it last year or the year before and has left it.
I believe that it's people who care about their surroundings that have the best maintained properties. It is society which brings people to act. Some people don't care what others think and act to their personal benefit, others feel a need to improve everyone's enjoyment of place and act to improve their own place and that improves all peoples enjoyment of the place. If you care about your neighbours you will pick up your garbage, if you don't you probably won't.
One of the biggest issue I see in BC today, is that the powerful are all drinking from the same ideological well, The Fraser Inst. is disproportionately influential with the quality of their analysis. Wouldn't it be preferential to have more than one side of an argument represented by the people who consult with government. What ever happened to debate and discussion. What is it that make the FI more right (correct) than the CFPA (center for policy alternatives)? Is it the backing of Canwest and others or is it their record. Has anyone looked at that record on their studies. It doesn't seem to me that the far right has been right (correct) too often.

The Fraser Destitute

"That is one of the reasons private enterprise is much more responsive than is government: bankruptcy."

Now that's funny stuff.

More responsive, you say?

"Responsive".... as in pleading to government for billions and billions of dollars in bankruptcy bail-outs?

Monopoly

Obviously, Block's libertarian economics text book doesn't contain an entry for monopoly. If you own a river, chances are very good cities and towns are going to be dependent on that river for water. Guess what happens to the price of water?

Also, does that imply if your river floods, everyone who gets flooded can sue you?

Wally deluded

yes, and there are pink puppies and money that grows on trees, and steets paved with gold!

As I've been writing on this

As I've been writing on this and on other lists and blogs, with a paper trail going back over 20 years, the brutal facts are that these braindead economists ("2+2= a miracle = 5.7, or 1.9, depending on who and what pays for it) are the cause of at least 80 to 90% of the world's self destructive problems, like world poverty, millions of starvation deaths, ecological destruction , climate change, perpetual wars, etc.

And this is all on account of their fraudulent definition of economic efficiency as "the biggest profits for the least monetary inputs", their GDP, growth and productivity figures, all based on false accounting systems no business could survive.

When they claim that the replacement of a few hp. of human energy with hundreds of hp-s of oil or other forms of energy is "efficient" and "cheaper" it is obvious that major disasters are just around the corner, as we can witness them now.

Yet, this crap is being taught in our universities as a "science", paid for by tax dollars and tax deductible donations by the corporate mafia to keep the crime wave going, so they can fill their pockets with stolen goodies.

Where were these so called "economists" to forecast the present financial meltdown, when many of us have been warning about it for years, every since the money creation powers of the banks have been deregulated ?

Ed Deak. .

one should ask what the definition of "owning a river" is.....

Is it the river bed & the water contained therein? Does that mean the glacier/groundwater source is included? How asbout the discharge end? Can the river owner also lay claim to a portion of the ocean? How about the rain that feeds the glacier that came from the ocean?

Or does it mean that one can own the riverbed, but not the water therein?

These libertarian-types are so (deliverately?) vague......

Slavery

Block is a brainless ideologue. Voluntary slavery becomes involuntary the moment the so-called "contract" comes into force. I suppose voluntary murder would work too. I'll pay7 you $100 million to to cure your kid but then I'll shoot you andp ut your head up on my wall...

This bozo has spent way too much time in the ivory tower or wherever it is he hangs out in and needs to get out among real people a bit more. The scenario he outlined is just as other worldly as my mocking parody; rafe mair gets it, block-head is too thick.

Responding to Nutbar Economic Theories 1...

First the comment thread here is outstanding for its manifestation of the degree to which the readership here sees through the fascist wackiness of this guy and his corporatist, so-called "Libertarian" economic theories.

And while many here have done a good job of letting this guy know how well they see through his economic fantasy, of course I always especially enjoy Ed's commentary and style. A special good job though, I thought, was done by not only Kelly P., but Pat P, who gave me a good chuckle, especially on the part about how we care for our privately owned physical bodies... of which I am undoubtedly a case in Point. :-)

How does he know this, I ask?

But that said, I do "tend" to agree, in my own way, of course, and within my own parameters, with what Mr. Block had to say "generally" about folks caring more about those things which they feel a sense of "ownership" over, at least versus those things which they feel or are "alienated" from. And I think one example is nature, in many regards, for many overly "citified" folks, though many rural folks too, especially within the alienated and isolating relationship of capitalist "private property" relations, wherein all nature is viewed no less from the purely "self interest", what's in it for me perspective of that prevailing economic relationship model.

Continued further...

Responding to Nutbar Economic Theories 2...

Likewise, when it comes to their relationship with their workplace/ larger economic environment. The fact of the matter is that, under the "private property relations" of capitalism, where real decision making power and influence over the strategic direction and day to day management is "alienated" from them, into the hands of a ruling class controlled "management strata", at best, even if unionized, most "workers" have little more than a utilitarian, self-interest attitude and relationship with their capitalist or even so-called "public" enterprise. And that primary relationship attitude in their day to day lives extends outward to the entire economy... as something abstract out there, over which they have little to zero control. It is like one of the forces of nature.

So, to my mind, what Mr. Block actually presents here, as part of his fantasy theory of capitalism and the superiority of a sense of ownership, is despite himself, one of the foundation arguments I would make for the need to democratize the entire economy, starting at the enterprise level, especially in the case of large scale enterprise. Through this system of "democratization of the economy", drawing in and including/ handing over, as part of a "new concept" of "public ownership" of the economy, "ownership" to workers, their class organizations and broader communities, including the day to day management and strategic directorship of, at least as a start, the key enterprises and sectors of the overall economy.

I think, thereby doing, Mr. Block just may be proved at least right in a way which he had never considered before, that such a sense and reality of ownership given to the working class and broader public, in a real, not phony, cosmetic, simply "productivity raising way", typical of capitalism's attempts to manipulate without real change, the working class and broader public might just begin to demonstrate a whole new "sense of ownership" attitude and set of behaviours. This extending not only toward their own workplaces, but the larger economy and society as a whole. And because the broader community and human set of values becomes thereby included as well, in a new "democratized" ownership and managed economy, that might just extend further outward toward our relationship with nature itself, within which context it all occurs at the sufferance of.

So, Mr. Block, while the system of "private enterprise" capitalist values is again being demonstrated as socially criminal, self-centred and socially irresponsible, I think there is a level and a context at which your theory works, even if not quite as your fascist fantasist theories might intend. The case for a new "democratized", socially responsible economic property "ownership" arrangement does, I think, have some merit. :-)

You have helped make the case for revolution/socio-economic transformation.

Mr Block

Slavery is slavery - voluntary or not.

Those that don't see the difference between the two types of slavery are always, not surprisingly, the slave owners and the pimps.

Wasting any more of my valuable time on this man is foolish; giving him a venue for his evil thoughts is worse.

too bad that ...

the tyee any level-headed or serious contributors to either side of this debate.

This may be pertinent

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/04/0082450
We quite likely do not actually own our own bodies, they being de facto enslaved, and rented out to each of us, hence, our mutual unwillingness to take good czre of them.....

Perhaps thei article isserves a noble purpose, G West

I think that The Tyee has done a good thing in publishing this G West. It gives the goods straight from horse's ...mouth. It lets the readers of The Tyee know without a doubt that the Fraser Institute believers (like Harper, Klein and Campbell) are beyond hope. They are shallow people who live in a world based upon greed and manipulation. It is almost incomprehensible that many of the people who are a part of the Fraser Institute have been educated in North American universities and yet would still listen to Block. It makes me shudder to think they may even believe his words.

connected

Disagree with you monsieur block. sorry.

This article makes me appreciate governments because power in people like your's hands is a frightening thought.

There really isn't such a thing as private property. There maybe fictional boundaries but the ground, air, water and beings are ultimately rely on each other.

You've proven here mr.Brock why the libertarian utopia will never exist because how could a rational society sit back and watch as lands upstream are bludgeoned which ultimately effects a person's well-being downstream.

You suggest a person is able to sue another person who impacts your personal well-being. Would you wait for a court order to come through if a person downstream from you put a huge net accross their section of the river while you upstream were left starving, waiting for the fish to legally enter your territory. Don't think so mate. Dreams, dreams and more dreams.

Yes GWest, "Know Thine Enemy"

We all know what happens to private property of any kind as it is being used. It may be squandered or mismanaged. Unless it is to be preserved as a hoped-for monument to the present owner, its future is dicey, for there's no guarantee that even heirs will look after it.

As for debt slavery, this was prevalent in the Middle Ages, and we have wisely banned it. Why so can be easily seen in Middle-eastern and African countries where this pitiless scourge is widespread even today.

The cure for the problem is obvious. In the first place, pay people more than a bare subsistence wage rate so that even the smallest setback doesn't become an economic and personal disaster. Discretionary money is NOT a luxury.

Or, we can either pay people well enough to afford ample insurance or provide health care by the State, just as we help people in times of flood, fire or storm.

That is how Socialists differ from Fascists like Block. We care for people, whereas he cares only for money, and he's going to take every last penny of his to his grave.

Wow! I've never heard anyone

call Rafe Mair a "socialist" before! My, how things change.

As for people looking after things better simply because they own them, all you have to do is look around at all the houses with junk heaps in their yards, beater cars and abused animals.

Care and Consideration

Our society accepts the sex-trade. Prostitution is legal in Canada. The definition of slavery when applied to prostitution can reasonably be applied, even if it is generally only slavery for a limited time period. It could still be called slavery.

The outrage generated by the writers analogy of the child needing expensive medical care to live, leading to a hypothetical voluntary slave relationship by the caring father has to be coupled with the acceptance of women, and men, on the streets of our cities selling themselves into quickie sex acts because this is slavery too. The time period as to how long this slavery lasts is usually only determined by how long a session the customer is willing to pay for.

If there are complaints over slavery to save the life of a child, should there not be complaints over temporary slavery for petty-cash for a sex-worker.

"Although slavery was the first human rights violation addressed by the international community,
it is far from being a thing of the past. Major efforts are still needed to ensure its elimination.
Slavery, however, is multifaceted. Its many faces change over time and reflect the socioeconomic
and religious context in which they are found. Trafficking, child labour, debt bondage,
exploitation of prostitution and the forced labour of millions of human beings worldwide
continue to be an appalling reality...."

Louise Arbour United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

"Sexual slavery - is dominated by absolute control of one person by another and does not necessarily involve any financial reward."

http:/www.ohcr.org/Documents/Publications/UNVFSPublicationsen/pdf

Not necessarily involve any financial reward but it may involve financial reward and this is where sexual prostitution blurs the line.

"...prostitution, in the vast majority of cases, represents the ownership of women and children by pimps, brothel owners, and sometimes even customers for the purpose of financial gain, sexual gratification, and/or power and domination. Of those women who appear to work in prostitution voluntarily, many if not most endured situations of enslavement as children, in thrall to sexually abusive adults, or as adolescents or young women subjected to the violent subjugation of abusive husbands or boyfriends. That subjugation is continued in prostitution, whether over the long term by the pimp, who controls her every movement and confiscates her earnings, or, for a shorter duration by the customer, who buys her body for a night or week and requires total compliance with his sexual demands."

"...for shorter duration by the customer, ..."

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/mhvslave.htm

the Link

The UNVFS link above does not work. If you want to find the report from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, then go to the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre web site:

http://www.business-humanrights.org/Categories/Sectors/Commercialsexpornography/Prostitutionsextrafficking

Scroll down to item #8.

Abstract vs Concrete

Academics are like fish. They swim in the waters of abstraction which allows them seemingly endless freedom to construct hypothetical situations, etc. etc.

The case of slavery barely needs addressing given its been wiped clean of any social and historical context such that it only happens to involve Mair, Block and a child - how charmingly simple.

Applied to our concrete reality who would be the slaves? The answer seems cruelly obvious - especially given the emphasis on health care concerns we may only look to the millions south of the border who have no insurance that would be the first victims of such a model. No wonder Nozick felt he had to recount on this deathbed... even an atheist wouldn't want to slip into that infinite night of darkness with the thought of his legacy being associated with such a position.

Returning to the problem at hand, it is not that excessive libertarianism is simply wrong (and much of Rafe Mair's talking points border simply on moral outage) it is that it is excessively one-sided and abstract. It is also, as Block admits, not an especially good friend with democracy.

When he points out that his abstractions need not the sanction of the masses he is undoubtedly right. Abstract logics fall much more into the realm of sectarian faiths and by their very definition are rarely held by a majority. But I wonder if there is something more to his dismissal of the majority than the implicit "mob mentality" argument that dares compete with his divine truths... Does this philosopher-king simply despise democracy? Everything I've read above makes me believe it does.

More Theories...

His next points are, let me guess...

1) Welfare causes poverty
2) Gun possesion reduces gun crime
3) Global warming doesn't matter because people getting too hot can just sue the polluters and buy air conditioners with the money...

there is a purpose beyond Block’s argument

Yes G. West, history has pretty much demonstrated the downside of slavery … few, except the odd Fraser Institute throwback, would argue in favour of slavery, in any form. However, there is a purpose beyond Block’s argument.

The reality of day to day life involves convincing ourselves that the stories we tell ouselves, and are told, are more than pure judgment.

Since “foolish” and “evil” are judgments … they do not actually exist, except in our mind … they need to be continually redefined in order for us to convince ourselves that they are real, and allow us to have confidence in our daily behavour.

As perverse as it sounds, we need folks like Block to remind us of unacceptable judgmental thinking ,,, as well as set new benchmarks for those judgments. In the extreme, censorship means we do humanity a disservice. In effect, we slow the evolution of human thinking and behaviour that favours our survival.

Disagree

The right wing neo con libertarian whack jobs have enought bully pulpits now...putting guys like Block on Tyee serves no real purpose.

His material and his philosophy is readily available now from the Fraser Institute.

Lots of people don't read the comments here and, since the change in format I bet plenty of new readers don't even realize there IS an all comments section.

Think Tank has no Respect for anything but Cash!

Nut case whack jobs is what the right calls the left when concerns are risen regarding this very subject. I call it Cherishing Our Planet and a way of life that takes all living things under its wing. Call me nutty but we don't own anything in truth. In actuality we only get to borrow you know like in life here today and gone tomorrow and your not taking anything with you. But you can leave something behind by taking care not to destroy what has be borrowed so others may also enjoy. How do you get those who have no respect to show some respect for the planet? By leaving them to their own devices I don't think so.
And G West I know the format has changed and will take a little getting used to for those of us that are familiar with the old way.

Liberty vs Slavery

Further to my comment above - how can an ideology of liberty, as Block describes it, be compatible with slavery?? Block argues that it is a right of liberty to forfeit liberty. This is no doubt true and a very logical point. But what it demonstrates is that anyone who absolutizes a logic such as liberty ultimately undermines the premises of that initial logic.

In this case, liberty becomes servitude.

This is not exactly an epiphany - the entire history of political philosophy is replete with references to this fundamental contradiction.

Thomas Hobbes' famous Leviathan dreamt-up a notion of humans with absolute liberty. He called it the state of nature. You could do whatever you wanted! What a great place to live! Except for the whole "nasty, brutish, and short" bit... the concrete conclusion to this abstract garden of eden.

Hobbes's insight = absolute principles lead to absolute contradiction (which in most cases = death).

So buyers of one-sided ideologies promising an unbending fidelity to every logical implication beware. You may come looking for liberty but end up a slave. Life isn't dead (abstract) logic.

Birneymac

1984 anyone?

Ministry of Truth
Ministry of Peace
Ministry of Love
Ministry of Plenty

And, using the same case presented by R/Man, employment is slavery as well.

Why do I say that?

Well think about it? Its all the Institute does is think about how the wealthy can get wealthier while the masses go with out. Its who the board consists of. Take Conrad Black for a moment he is a prime example of what the Think Tank is all about as he is busily trying to dig his way out of his cell using legal channels, he is a proud member. It is kinda like those forced to work for slave wages in BC that barely allow their existence at $8.00 hour. And with the harmonized tax the first to feel the pinch will be the server counting on a 10% tip as the government scams the working stiff because Campbell needs cash.
So the slave thing is alive and active as the young are the first recruited and the proof is in the injuries which many of the BC young did not miss out on. It was another BC horror as most slave stories are especially when involving the young and don't even lets even get into the disgrace of young children being sexually exploited. Oh yes, thats right good for tourism as many come from all over the world to exploit BC Children, we are number one. I don't know about you its not something I would want to cash in on?

Libertarians

"In any case, with free markets, all land, and water too, would tend to be used in the manner that maximized profits; that is, produced the most value for all members of society." This statement by Block says a lot. He assumes that maximum profits provide the most value to all members of society, which is nonsense. Exxon has never had better profits, but climate change is accelerating, which is not good for all members of society. Interestingly, Libertarians deny climate change and they must since it turns their theories on their head. Libertarians talk of being able to do anything as long as it does not harm anyone else. This is why they call for the legalization of drugs for example. However, the oil companies do harm others through pollution and climate change for example, and this is why Libertarians must deny that climate change is occuring, while suggesting that dioxin is benign.
Mr. Block is living proof that not all Kooks are stupid.

changes to Tyee format and wage slavery and ownership.

I am also not a fan of the change in format here at the Tyee. It seems these folks have polished out the people, so to speak, as comments are barely visible. Perhaps the rewards they have been getting have caused them to lose the focus on the grassroots and shoot for more prestige? Don't forget folks, a big part of the story here is in the comments section.

I am torn by the arguments against Mr. Block's presence here. I agree, Block has a pretty big playground to play in with his ideas - however, if we don't invite them to play with us, how can we ever expect to change their minds?

All of the posts about wage slavery are great - a complex topic though, some say the only outcome of capitalism is just that - wage slavery for the majority and wealth for the very few. I think the current economic situation has exposed this reality. I just wish people would stop chasing celebrities and get out and do something about it.

There's nothing wrong with

There's nothing wrong with the invitation of Block to say his piece. This is free speech, one of the last freedoms we have left, until somebody buys the rights and stops it in the name of "globally competitve free enterprise".

I've heard exactly the same arguments from fascists, nazis and communists.

It is always good to hear and get a whiff of the Stone Ages, represented by Block, Herb Grubel, Stevie Harper, Campbell, the Fraser Inst, and on our blogs by the likes of our so called "realisticman".

If nothing else, they keep us awake and give warning of what they're planning.

I just wrote my last column for the Gold River Record, where I quoted the 1943 words of SS Boss Heinrich Himmler, setting up the scenario for the EU and globalization, 66 years ago :

“Himmler replied without hesitation: The Fuehrer thinks and acts for the benefit of Europe. He regards himself as the last champion of the Western world and its culture. He is convinced that modern achievements in technology, especially railroad, highway, and air transport, have made national boundaries unimportant and obsolete. Small nations, not economically self sufficient, must join more powerful ones. In modern conditions only economic units of great size can survive, those politically and productively strong enough to assert their independence”

“......The European area must form a group, with the power that is economically and strongest as its nucleus. For their own benefit the nations must voluntarily submit themselves to the leadership of the strongest state......”

On the subject of the attacks on Poland and the Soviet Union: “What else could have we done ? You must remember that the thickly populated German soil can support only about sixty percent of its inhabitants. The resources required for maintaining the standard of living for all of us, and for supporting the balance of forty percent, must be imported....”

Ed Deak.

On Block's Presence

Last comment - I've made three before, all of which are probably guilty of the Internet "discussion" disease of being a monologue of my personal opinion rather than a dialogue with anyone in particular.

I am glad Block had a space to write here and by the looks of the 70+ comments on this site he's made an impact. I agree with others that the opinions of those with more clout should be limited in order to push the less well-heard (and yet sometimes profoundly more "popular" in the sense of democratic) opinions.

I hope the Tyee continues to invite interesting opinions to the Tyee. It will keep the rest of us honest (incl. in this case Rafe Mair who often goes unchallenged in his articles that feature more moral indignation than evidence at times)..

on sunsets

Revisiting the comments debate seems apropos here; I found Block’s response uninteresting but became engrossed in following the comments. Presumably, this is a large part of why the Tyee published the piece; however, the ‘best’ and ‘all’ comments feature negates this…It has the effect of purportedly inviting the participation of all but singling out those worthy of editorial correctness. If one is not ‘editorially correct’ enough (note, I do not include here libellous, personally insulting, racist, etcetera kinds of comments) to make it into ‘best' comments how does this serve the participatory model?
I am indebted to each of you (I refuse to single anyone out) for enabling me to look at various sides of Block’s argument, for he lost me at: “In any case, with free markets, all land, and water too, would tend to be used in the manner that maximized profits; that is, produced the most value for all members of society.” What kind of person believes that profits equate to the highest good for all? This would seem to be very pertinent, for there are those who believe we are perilously close to living in some version of Block’s dismal fantasies…
I have no interest in defending the ‘capitalist system’: I am radical enough to disagree with the concept of private ownership of property. But I think it does no good to posit any ‘system’ created by humans as the source of all our sorrows – any system made by humans can be unmade by humans.
As I hiked in the mountains last evening a wondrous sunset captivated me. I paused a long time to take it in; the glorious sense of aliveness and well-being and magic was just there for the experiencing. This is part of what is at stake for me in the question of how we humans move forward, and it is a most pressing one. I believe I will end with a quote from Harry Guntrip for the eminent readers here:
“If human infants are not surrounded by genuine love from birth, radiating outward into a truly caring family and social environment, then we pay for our failure toward the next generation by having to live in a world filled with fear and hate…The importance of security for babies and mothers outweighs every other issue. If that is not achieved, everything else we do merely sustains human masses to struggle on from crisis to crisis.”
It is surely not ‘profits’ that sustains and nurtures humanity …

There's nothing wrong with

There's nothing wrong with private property and private enterprise. I've enjoyed and practiced both all my adult life and still do.

The family farm is the oldest form of both and this is why both the communists and capitalists are going out of their way to destroy it. Because they're they're brother under the skin, setting up the new "Internationale" now called "globalization".

There's nothing wrong with a glass of wine, or beer either, but deadly wrong when it leads to alcoholism and driving under the influence.

As a rancher, I have to have guns to protect my animals from predators, but not for using them to rob and kill others.

The problems start with the size and power of properties, and how they are used: For the benefit, or the destruction of others and the environment.

When a handful of multinational corporations own, control whole economic areas, like the world's food supplies in the hands of 2-3, ruining suppliers and stealing the eyes out of the public in the stores, that's no "private ownership" , but a crime wave.

We have all kinds of laws on the books against such activities, but they're not enforced, because the so called "economists" would start screaming that it cuts "competitiveness", the holy grail of all these miseducated, warped minded jerks.

So we're going downhill and to self destruction to please their ideological crap enslaving the world.

This is not "private ownership" any more than Stalin's collectivization and enslavement campaigns. And I have seen that too and fought against it for 45 years, as I'm fighting these crooks now, operating under another name, now called capitalism.

Ed Deak

We may...

"All of the posts about wage slavery are great - a complex topic though, some say the only outcome of capitalism is just that - wage slavery for the majority and wealth for the very few. I think the current economic situation has exposed this reality. I just wish people would stop chasing celebrities and get out and do something about it." Wrote nechakogal.

Hang in there brother/sister. We may just get there in due course. :-)

You've just got to understand that folks, especially when it sometimes involves the need for great courage and committment, need to spend a great deal of time chewing the fat and convincing themselves first. We ain't talking a tea party here. :-) If we ever seriously get up and moving, the poop is going to hit the fan... big time.

Peace folks. I gotta go water the horses. And some of the ladies I hang out with, want to go for a ride this evening. :-)

I think it's great to

I think it's great to publish columns like this. Nothing exposes gargage like light.

Fiat Lux

Perhaps in spite of what I have written here, I too have no beef with private property. I only would like to know just how property that is "unowned" becomes "owned" -- and as always without the use of violence or the promise of violence, something that virtually ALL so-called Libertarians assert.

wake up

This guy can't be serious.

The idea of maximized profit as something that benefits the majority is ridiculous. Corporate profits benefit a single class. Corporate profits kill workers, dessimate the environment, and enslave nations of people. They are achieved by short sighted, greedy executives who could care less about the state of their properties, because they will be promoted or retire with millions, and leave their mess for the next budding millionaire to cover up.

The ideal that profit is a motivator to 'do the right thing' has been shown again and again to be tragically wrong.

But the working class are the only ones paying the price.

buy buy forests

Gordo privatising our rivers is just the beginning, perhaps a practice run for his next diabolical move. So far he has gotten away with these IPP's and in the next year or two he will begin to do the same to our publicly owned forests. This will be his way of revitalizing the forest industry in BC, a massive sell-off to private and foreign enterprises of our greatest resource. The rivers and forests are cannot considered separately for they are all the same resource. With so many rivers under contract to these IPP's it would be the obvious next move for Campbell to bail out his deficit budgets. His short term thinking will make him look good to the city folk but the sell-off will devastate the forest-dependent communities in the rest of the province. In BC private forest land regulations are extremely lax and the flow of raw logs out of this province will be vast and irreversible. Go sit at a border crossing right now and watch how much LUMBER comes north into our province....that's like trucking SAND into Saudi Arabia!

Great Discussion.

Good comments here.

We know that the example that Mr. Block uses is intentionally emotive. 100 million to save your child? We also know that there are families that have children where traditional medical treatments fail to be effective and that there are only alternative or experimental procedures are left to try, ones that may not be covered by our medical system. This leaves families trying to raise funds from the community.

Now libertarians could argue that a caring, prosperous community would voluntarily come to support those in need… but the idea of tying such a situation to a voluntary slave contract is pretty hard to take – especially when we live in this province that brands itself as “The Best Place on Earth”. We hope that when times are good, we are able to help each other out through social or societal obligation, not through individual contractual obligation.

I notice that Ed Deak has been pretty passionate in this discussion. As a World War II vet, he has witnessed families make some life and death decisions forced by circumstance. He gives us glimpses here and there. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness… or do we want peace, order, and good government. Where do slave contracts fit in our present ideologies? Unfortunately, it seems that there may be some wiggle room here.

However, I appreciate Mr. Block’s views, and I understand that he does not want an individual to have any creative solutions removed when it comes to a unique situation – whether or not they may seem distasteful or set a negative precedent.

Yikes.

Human Rights?

Is this writer seriously not aware or in agreement with basic human rights??

Moat......The problem is not

Moat......The problem is not the individual making creative solutions, which I've been pursuing all my life towards a great degree of self sufficiency, but when somebody else is making and forcing them on the individual.

I've started searching for the "common denominator of history's tragedies" in 1945, when I was standing by a primitive, MASH hospital operating table holding the legs of about 100 guys as they were being amputated and reamputated.

I found the common denominator in 1985, the fraudulent definition of economic efficiency, also promoted here by Block, as the biggest profits for the least monetary inputs.

Going back into history, we can see how economic efficiency has always been defined as the religious justification of violence, theft, colonization and mass murder for the "creation" of wealth into the hands of ruling classes, whether they called themselves aristocracies by divine order, or conquerors spreading some religious "faiths", and now with the perceived power of imaginary money "created from the air.

This is why and how the biggest criminals and mass murderers, like Alexander, have been bestowed titles like "Great" and the "Conqueror", "Defender of the faith", etc. and now the multinational corporate mafia taking dictatorial control over our lives, while calling it "freedom".

Yes, the freedom of the legalization of theft and murder.

Wealth is the temporary control of energy.

Wealth can not be created, only taken from other sectors, the environment and the future.

Costs can not be cut only transferred on other sectors,,,etc.

Money has become a licence for the control of energy, issued by spacial interest sector for its own benefit, enslaving others.

Globalization is the new version of the communist internationale under a different coloured flag, for the purpose of global control and enslavement, taught and justified in our universities as a pseudo religious "science"

It is about time for humanity to wake up and realize that we're living under the biggest crime wave in human history that could easily destroy the human race and Earth, again, taught in our universities by a pseudo priesthood of the Money God who lives in computers under the guise of "competitiveness" that absolves all crimes.

How on Earth can anybody with the warped mentalities of people like Block, be permitted to brainwash students without any questioning by professors and people still capable of rational thought?

What makes these people, and other priesthoods, invulnerable, regardless of the terrible results and consequences of their teachings ?

Ed Deak.

.

Ed

Interesting post ... as usual ... but stops short of answering the question, What it will take to wake the masses? Understanding the physical laws of the universe isn’t enough.

In order for humanity to “wake up” and break through the impunity of those oblivious to the “terrible results and consequences of their teachings”, individuals must be informed, involved and understand a thinking process that helps separate judgment from reality. Becoming informed and involved is easy, understanding why we think the way we do is the challenge.

And, as VivianLea has pointed out, this understanding must start at infancy (some say it must begin in the womb). Most of us, whose reality (growth is good, more is better) is the product of decades of training, will find “no growth” and “less” difficult to accept. Indeed, most will flatly reject change.

What a joke....

...the whole notion of property is a fiction, or a form of shorthand for something animalistic/primal along the lines of, "I consider this part of my territory, necessary for my existence, and I will fight you if try and take it." Sure, we've layered millenia of custom and social ritual on top of that underlying assertion, but at the root it remains the same.

So go ahead Walter, rail against taxation or any other form of tyranny by the collective against individuals. And go ahead and buy yourself a river if you can find one for sale. But keep in mind that if you pollute it, or if we need it for some larger social purpose, we'll take it back, because we, collectively, care more for one another than we do for you, and we might just respond to your selfishness with brute force.

KWD....I fully agree with

KWD....I fully agree with you, but frankly don't have the answers, even after over 60 years of research. Nobody has.

The main curse on humanity has always been "Faith", installed into people's brains by crooks to excuse the most hideous and criminal actions.

"Faith conquers all, especially logical thought"

We now have the worst crimes committed by faith in various forms of ideological claptrap, as shown by Block, who seems to go crazier by the day, even compared to his Fraser Inst. days.

People are brainwashed and miseducated from day one to believe in faith based theories and, having gone through the brainwash and then the years of deprogramming myself, I know how difficult it is to leave long held, mostly false beliefs and associations behind.

However, history shows us thousands of examples that all faith based systems will and must self destruct. Sometimes it happens overnight, sometimes over long periods. How and why, nobody knows and I've spent a lifetime looking for the reasons.

I'm not a religious person by any definition, but over the years I could not dismiss the possibility of some superior power working in the background, which I call the "universal consciousness", and have seen to many manifestations of its possible existence.

As one of my psychology instructors told us once, the conscious mind can always be twisted and turned to believe in the craziest theories, but the subconscious can not, it always knows and understands the truth and will always keep on working to bring it out into the open.

Was he correct ? It may the a subject of debate, but I have seen a lot of near miracles that can not be explained any other way.

Was the Mayan Calendar correct in predicting either the destruction of Earth in 2012, or the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment ?

I don't know, but being a perennial optimist, this is why I'm on these blogs and lists, I hope for the second and to live to see it.

How did the mighty USSR collapse overnight, with a whimper ? It could and should happen again, but first we must weed out the university economics departments of the likes of Block and Grubel, who keep the fraud and lies going through brainwash.

Ed Deak.

banks

Mr. Deak, always good to read you. I understand why you focus on the way banks gain their power, creating money out of thin air. I wonder why you don't talk more about what they do with their power? There is talk of slavery here, and a comparison to the temporary slavery of prostitution, but what about the slavery of all of us working for the banks? Anyone out there have a mortgage? How much of your income goes towards paying just the interest on that mortgage? Anyone out there run a business? How much of the profit goes towards paying interest on debts? Anyone out there pay taxes? How much of your tax dollar goes towards interest on the national debt? If you add it all up, and add in the cost that gets added on to everything you buy so everyone from the producer through all the middelmen to the retailer can afford to pay the interest on their debts, then how much of every dollar you earn goes directly into the banks pockets as interest? It almost seems silly for the banks to even bother with the paperwork of creating money out of thin air, when they are collecting it as fast as they can count it (faster?) as a tax on every single transaction that occurs throughout the entire economy. Would be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

The Divine Right of Kings 1...

"Perhaps in spite of what I have written here, I too have no beef with private property."

By and large, I mostly agree with Deeby re the matter of private property. Mind you, that said, the historical "notion" of private property has been around for a long time, and is unlikely to soon vanish, at least entirely, over a short period of time. I accept that.

But then, when we are talking private property, and the negative impacts of this notion on society, we are not really talking about the average citizen individual's ownership of his own home I think, for example. We all need a "home", and ownership of one's home does, I think, within this very limited parameter agreeing with Mr Block, create first an important sense of belonging for people, rootedness, stability for the community and security. And "most" folks at least who have this sense of ownership of their own space, ARE inclined to take greater pride in it. It is, I think, a socially useful form of property ownership, overall.

Continued further on...

The Divine Right of Kings 2...

It is when we extend that notion of ownership out to its ridiculous extreme, to include people's labour through the wage slave system, the economically productive and wild lands of nature and society, and the economic plant/ means of work and sustenance upon which all are dependent and in which the masses, at least as much as the self-styled "owners" of same, participate as producers and consumers, we are talking about a qualitatively different phenomena that sets up a quite different set of impacts on people and their communities. Indeed, it sets up the whole class edifice of a ruling class greed dominated system, with its negative consequences of extreme wealth and privilege on the one hand and community destroying poverty and disempowerment on the other. And in between constantly goes on, waxing and waning in intensity and ferocity, but constantly maintaining an ever present and harmful friction within society and between peoples, a constant state of class struggle, tension and even, from time to time, open war between the classes to this owner and wage slave model of society. (And again, as in the case of home ownership, when it comes to agriculture and the family farm for example, as distinct from the "corporate farm", likewise that "worker ownership" of the farmer, in my view, serves a positive benefit to the larger society. Likewise with many mom and pop shop small businesses.)

Where the fundamental problem resides within class society, in my view, is in the extending out in scale and scope, to millions of power and influence, and share level disenfranchised now within that notion of "private ownership" to large scale, "corporate", dominating key sectors of the modern economy capitalism. Too few fairly benefit from the social and share consequences of the notion, too few disproportionately benefit to what can only be described as obscene levels, and the whole of society is rendered too vulnerable to the consequences of their greed whims and caprice,

It is this latter notion of "private ownership", now with new greed dimensions built into it, that is the primary problem within the human economy and our interface with nature. It needs to be rendered obsolete, democratized in its power structure to include workers and their communities, including environmentalist "interest groups" and consumers.

This problem has reached the level of the problem that was created by the "Divine Right of Kings" in earlier feudal societies. The solution for which we need a kind of modern day Magna Carta, only with the modern working class and our communities placed into the position of the Barons at Runnymeade, confronting Kind John.

This notion of private ownership of property needs to be brought under control, and down to a socially useful and controllable level, democratic control over the economy needs to be radically extended and the Divine Right of Capitalists needs to be brought under control and/or extinguished outright.

Clarification

Up thread here I made the point that the Tyee ought not to be the place for Mr Block's opinions.

I was NOT saying that discussing his so-called ideas was problematic and I certainly don't believe that - he's more than entitled to his opinions and there are scads of places where interested folk can go to read, study and try to 'understand' them.

I simply wrote that it was my belief that Block himself shouldn't be writing journalism here at the Tyee.

Why did I say that?

Because I know what the Tyee chose for its mission.

Others may have forgotten so I'll cut and paste it here:

I simply don't think paying Walter Block to write here fits that mission statement.

That's all. Now that Block's here - go at him. I wish I had the time to join you but I don't.

Cheers.

mikev

"Anyone out there have a mortgage?"

You don't have to have a mortgage. You can, if you prefer, save the money yourself and buy when you have enough. Banks give mortgages to those who wish to move in now! and pay later. There is a choice. As for their interest, well it's paid out in taxes and in dividends to the thousands of stockholders, who answer to the shareholders. It also goes to the thousands of workers in the banks (Royal employs 80,000 alone!).

It's all voluntary and if you'd rather use a mattress you may.

choice

It would be a lot easier to use my mattress if house prices weren't so inflated by the "voluntary slavery" of easy to get mortgages, pretty much expected to get these days. Which the banks haven't exactly been loathe to hand out to anyone who asks, since it just perpetuates the cozy system for them. With the current consequences of everyone but bankers looking for work. I would cry less over 80,000 bankers looking for work than I would over 10 people who actually create something useful for society. But hey that's just me. Thanks for stopping by Zephyrus.

How did we get here?

A rare bit of interesting comment in the usual sea of NDP angst that makes the Tyee unreadable for many people.

Many commenters rant on at the Liberals and their policies forgetting how we got here.

How was that? 10 years of NDP government that was so bad the people of BC preferred the only alternative - with little regard to what that alternative was.

They elected the Liberals, then elected them again, and again. That must tell you something about the NDP in the 90s and the NDP that ran against the Liberals since then.

As for how bad the IPPs are - look for the Fletcher op ed on what generates big public protests in BC (http://tinyurl.com/lu25jo). He lists a number of electricity projects - transmission lines through parks, ... - done by BC hydro with no public outcry. Then he lists the ones with big public outcry - all the private projects. It is pretty clear that the problem here is a union problem - if IPPs were unionized there would be no outrage.

The environment is just a tool used to beat on the government - the real goal is more public sector union jobs. Same in senior care homes, same with hospitals, same with paramedics, ... People outside the union movement see right through the fake crocodile tears of James and the NDP.

The Ax the Tax campaign exposed the NDP for the political opportunists they are. Most environmental organizations came out for the tax and against the NDP.

As bad as all you NDP whiners think the liberals are, the people of BC think the NDP is worse. Think about it for a minute.

If the NDP wants to continue to be a union party - its position for the last 50 years - then it will continue to rot in opposition. Worse, if Vision Vancouver does go provincial, the NDP will vanish from the provincial political scene, replaced by a left wing socialist party.

And that would be good for BC. It would force the Liberals to move to the centre right, dropping many of their wacky pro-business ideas and ministers (even it it took a couple of terms in opposition to do it - opposition to Vision BC that is).

The political future in BC includes the left, once it shakes of the death grip of public sector unions.