What a perfect quotation, managed or otherwise. I want to buy some of her books and start reading. Years ago I read a book by Thomas Sowell entitled "Intellectuals" which was highly critical of Arendt the left winger. But over the last 20 years, I have discovered that even thinkers I disagree with in a profound and fundamental way quite often produce brilliant insights I would never expect from a distorted mind. Life is full of surprises.
I like Hannah Arendt. You won't find anyone who is brilliant in every respect, or who is beyond criticism. I think I read small fragments of Thomas Sowell because one of the comments under my other article drew my attention to him. However, that didn't indicate that Hannah Arendt was left-wing; rather, it suggested the opposite, because she identified more with "higher circles" than with the proletariat. Now, the terms "left" and "right" have been deliberately confused, distorted, and emptied of meaning. I must admit, however, that the criticism I read is only vaguely remembered.
I have not yet read any of her writing, so I do not know really. Sowell devoted a chapter to her ideas and her personal behavior (the latter I don't much care about as long as it is not directed at me). I do hope to start reading her. Noam Chomsky is a leftist; he has more than once offered insights and observations that I totally identified with (before and after I discovered what an authoritarian he is- (meaning someone who wants to empower government by depriving individuals of their freedom to choose how to peacefully live their lives). Anyway, a book I read a couple of times years ago was entitled The Flight from Truth by Jean Francois Revel, a French thinker. The theme was the inevitable dishonesty of all authoritarian regimes--regardless of doctrine--because for a lot of reasons they need to lie to maintain power. Later I figured out that the fundamental reason tyrannical regimes must lie is because people cannot flourish (or cannot survive sometimes) under tyranny. Systems that regiment economic activity in the interest of defending this or upholding that thereby deprive people of the freedom to provide for themselves, and the regimentation is justified always with false promises and movement of goal posts. This is inevitable because tyranny is unproductive , counter productive actually, and so promises always fail. Thanks.
A very interesting comment, thank you. I understood the term "... regiment economic activity..." to mean central economic regulation. Is that exactly the same thing?
In plain talk, it means a plethora of taxes, licensing and regulations--no one can do anything without a permission slip (that may not be forthcoming).
In our times, sound economic reasoning has almost disappeared--long renounced and ignored. Sound reasoning proves, as has been explained in depth by many writers-thinkers over the decades and centuries, that voluntary economic and commerical decision making regarding every facet of economic activity, yields a natural and productive economic order. This order is benevolent, but when aspects of this natural order are subjected to coercive interventions, order is replaced by "planned chaos" (Ludwig von Mises' phrase and the title of a short book by him).
Sound economic reasoning makes clear that the natural and voluntary economic order is similar to natures' organisms. When people are exposed to toxins or harsh psychosomatic influences, they get sick and the body produces symptoms as it attempts to resolve the problem.
Similarly, when problems turn up in production, revealed by poverty, or great scarcity, or labor intensive methods in a time of labor scarcity, or whatever, "market processes" seek always to correct the problems--reduce scarcities, imbalances, production bottlenecks, and as a result gradually reduce poverty. The market does this because individuals make deals--in employment, and in producing, selling and buying goods--that best serve their own ends. Voluntary exchanges only take place when both parties expect to improve their situation. So production tends to flourish, scarcities decline, capital is accumulated and used to make productive enterprises vastly more productive and innovative. All this effort and voluntary work, including innovation and trading steadily increase material abundance and reduce the incidence and severity of poverty.
Not all voluntary exchanges improve the circumstances of the exchangers, however. A voluntary exchange of money for drugs benefits neither participant: trhe drug user gradually inflicts self-ruin, the drug peddler sabotages his self esteem and prospects for flourishing by marketing not goods, but bads. (I say, let them self destruct if that's what they want).
A final point: Most people are unaware of the virtue of economic freedom, because of cultural hostility to the idea, especially in institutions of formal education. Usually, people do not think to question doctrine they've been taught from childhood, just as I never thought to question virology until I got lucky and started reading in 2020.
This ignorance is tragic, because well meaning people believe economic activity must be regulated and directed by government, even though they also believe people should be free or at least fairly free. But that is a contradiction, because most of the time of the lives of most people is spent engaging in commercial activity--working a job, trying to invent or start a business, running a family enterprise and etc. If those activities are regimented and punished in various ways, freedom is bound to disappear regardless of "civil liberties", voting, freedom of "religion" and other comparatively minor areas of life. Coercive interventions increase year after year, because each intervention causes economic imbalances and problems, that from the point of view of regulators calls for further coercive measures to fix the problem (which occurs because people try to evade regulations that reduce their ability to get things done). So the state grows in power and malevolence, including into all areas of inquiry, such as health.
My point is that if one falls into the fallacy of supporting economic regimentation, one thereby sets the stage for tyranny and its endless lies and injustices.
Oh, no. I was pleased by the length of your text on this topic, because I'm interested in opinions on the subject. Thank you very much! I admit that this is a trick question: How far should economic freedom go? Should banks, and asset managers like BlackRock, remain completely unregulated? And shouldn't the formation of monopolies be prohibited by law? And what about Pfizer? And, what should happen to the unions when they demand certain regulations? Should they be banned so that a company can develop freely?
The subject of cause and effect in economic activity is complex, and not at all self evident. Monopolies cannot occur in an authentically free market--at least not in the oppressive sense that people assume in using the word. The basic reason boils down to the fact that people can always so "No" and seek out alternatives. A monopoly requires the power to extract from customers a "monopoly price"--meaning a return over costs that is higher than the market rate of return that prevails in all other lines of productive endeavor as entrepreneurs enter production activity that yields a higher return and leave activities that afford a lower rate of return. A monopoly requires, first, an inelastic demand curve for its product, so as it raises prices it's revenues increase due to higher price more than offsetting reduced unit sales. If it attains higher revenues and rate of return due to inelasticity, it must next withstand competition, as capitalist entrepreneurs deploy capital investment into the higher rates of return endeavor, which will occur sooner or later depending on circumstances. Not every business attains an identical rate of profit. Profits will be higher or lower depending on the skill of the businessman and businesses fail frequently too. But in various lines of production the average rate of return will tend to equalize over time.
We have all been taught about the alleged abuses of various 19th century monopolists, but that history is false and is based on interpretation stemming from the idea of monopolies inevitably developing under capitalism. To take one example, John D. Rockefeller started with nothing, working as a commissioned salesman buying and selling oil rights.He was a business genius who lifted living standards for millions by developing poil refining and thereby providing cheap products such as kerosene, which he made much more abundant and inexpensive than the product it replaced which was whale oil. It's historifcfal irony that Rockefeller, whose business empire was broken up by the Federal Trade Commission, was himself a progressive ideologue who was active and influential in imposing licensing restrictions for physicians and medical schools. Rockefeller is partly to blame for nearly universal acceptance among licensed doctors of "germ theory" pseudoscience, which was installed by force by state legislatures in the 19th century.
In summary, history is necessarily interpreted and its stories spun based on theoretical ideas about cause and effect. The history of pandemics and disease outbreaks is one example. Refute the idea of invisible pathogens making people sick, and contagion is exposed as false and pandemic history falls apart. It's the same with economic history.
Black rock and other huge banks are not products of economic freedom. They are joined at the hip with the state and it's incessant Money printing, of which the banks are the first recipients and beneficiaries (as investmenet asset prices are drive up and up by the new money funneled through the bank system. The Federal Reserve system was conceived as a cartel of banks to protect them from inevitable panics and crashes that followed always on the heels of non-orchestrrated credit expansion. With the Fed regulating the rate of credit expansion among all the banks through various means, inflationary booms would then persist for much longer periods. Still the crash must finally occurs , because the inflationary boom causes misallocation of scarce capital and the distortion of relative ;prices, which make unprofitable opr marginally profitable lines of production temporarily appear to be highly profitable. The crash ends capital waste through misallocation that was caused by the inflationary monetary expansion. The ensuing recession corrects for the malinvestment caused by the inflated money supply that funded the artificial boom. At the end, the Fed steps in and bails out big banks, but some banks less favored it allows to go bankrupt. The Fed and all its activities overturn free market capital allocation and free market pricing which both are essential to productive and natural market order.
Of course, Black rock is deeply favored by the state and directly involved in its predatory activities, such as taking over black earth farmland in Ukraine.
I suspect that AI uses all sorts of sleight of hand for each individual computer, i.e., completely individually, because it has already created our psychological profiles. Thank you for your kind comment.
Here is a link to a German article about AI. A nice commenter said the article is a must-read:
Thanks for sharing. Interesting article on AI as a basis for behavioral manipulation. I was actually thinking of a direct parallel, however, to Arendt’s idea. As AI becomes more advanced & pervasive, we’ll be unable to distinguish reality from simulation - hence we’ll lose our ability to judge and discriminate. If all people, events, videos, photos, voices, documents, and other evidence can be perfectly simulated, would there even be a justice system, beyond what the State decrees?
I agree with you, of course. My point was simply that the effect of propaganda is more targeted, that is, tailored to each individual, and therefore the method of confusion mentioned by Hannah Arendt is not applied in a scatter gun manner. At least, that's what I suspect. For those computer owners who are not easily confused, there are probably other, and even better, methods of brainwashing.
What a perfect quotation, managed or otherwise. I want to buy some of her books and start reading. Years ago I read a book by Thomas Sowell entitled "Intellectuals" which was highly critical of Arendt the left winger. But over the last 20 years, I have discovered that even thinkers I disagree with in a profound and fundamental way quite often produce brilliant insights I would never expect from a distorted mind. Life is full of surprises.
Hi Rider,
I like Hannah Arendt. You won't find anyone who is brilliant in every respect, or who is beyond criticism. I think I read small fragments of Thomas Sowell because one of the comments under my other article drew my attention to him. However, that didn't indicate that Hannah Arendt was left-wing; rather, it suggested the opposite, because she identified more with "higher circles" than with the proletariat. Now, the terms "left" and "right" have been deliberately confused, distorted, and emptied of meaning. I must admit, however, that the criticism I read is only vaguely remembered.
I have not yet read any of her writing, so I do not know really. Sowell devoted a chapter to her ideas and her personal behavior (the latter I don't much care about as long as it is not directed at me). I do hope to start reading her. Noam Chomsky is a leftist; he has more than once offered insights and observations that I totally identified with (before and after I discovered what an authoritarian he is- (meaning someone who wants to empower government by depriving individuals of their freedom to choose how to peacefully live their lives). Anyway, a book I read a couple of times years ago was entitled The Flight from Truth by Jean Francois Revel, a French thinker. The theme was the inevitable dishonesty of all authoritarian regimes--regardless of doctrine--because for a lot of reasons they need to lie to maintain power. Later I figured out that the fundamental reason tyrannical regimes must lie is because people cannot flourish (or cannot survive sometimes) under tyranny. Systems that regiment economic activity in the interest of defending this or upholding that thereby deprive people of the freedom to provide for themselves, and the regimentation is justified always with false promises and movement of goal posts. This is inevitable because tyranny is unproductive , counter productive actually, and so promises always fail. Thanks.
A very interesting comment, thank you. I understood the term "... regiment economic activity..." to mean central economic regulation. Is that exactly the same thing?
In plain talk, it means a plethora of taxes, licensing and regulations--no one can do anything without a permission slip (that may not be forthcoming).
In our times, sound economic reasoning has almost disappeared--long renounced and ignored. Sound reasoning proves, as has been explained in depth by many writers-thinkers over the decades and centuries, that voluntary economic and commerical decision making regarding every facet of economic activity, yields a natural and productive economic order. This order is benevolent, but when aspects of this natural order are subjected to coercive interventions, order is replaced by "planned chaos" (Ludwig von Mises' phrase and the title of a short book by him).
Sound economic reasoning makes clear that the natural and voluntary economic order is similar to natures' organisms. When people are exposed to toxins or harsh psychosomatic influences, they get sick and the body produces symptoms as it attempts to resolve the problem.
Similarly, when problems turn up in production, revealed by poverty, or great scarcity, or labor intensive methods in a time of labor scarcity, or whatever, "market processes" seek always to correct the problems--reduce scarcities, imbalances, production bottlenecks, and as a result gradually reduce poverty. The market does this because individuals make deals--in employment, and in producing, selling and buying goods--that best serve their own ends. Voluntary exchanges only take place when both parties expect to improve their situation. So production tends to flourish, scarcities decline, capital is accumulated and used to make productive enterprises vastly more productive and innovative. All this effort and voluntary work, including innovation and trading steadily increase material abundance and reduce the incidence and severity of poverty.
Not all voluntary exchanges improve the circumstances of the exchangers, however. A voluntary exchange of money for drugs benefits neither participant: trhe drug user gradually inflicts self-ruin, the drug peddler sabotages his self esteem and prospects for flourishing by marketing not goods, but bads. (I say, let them self destruct if that's what they want).
A final point: Most people are unaware of the virtue of economic freedom, because of cultural hostility to the idea, especially in institutions of formal education. Usually, people do not think to question doctrine they've been taught from childhood, just as I never thought to question virology until I got lucky and started reading in 2020.
This ignorance is tragic, because well meaning people believe economic activity must be regulated and directed by government, even though they also believe people should be free or at least fairly free. But that is a contradiction, because most of the time of the lives of most people is spent engaging in commercial activity--working a job, trying to invent or start a business, running a family enterprise and etc. If those activities are regimented and punished in various ways, freedom is bound to disappear regardless of "civil liberties", voting, freedom of "religion" and other comparatively minor areas of life. Coercive interventions increase year after year, because each intervention causes economic imbalances and problems, that from the point of view of regulators calls for further coercive measures to fix the problem (which occurs because people try to evade regulations that reduce their ability to get things done). So the state grows in power and malevolence, including into all areas of inquiry, such as health.
My point is that if one falls into the fallacy of supporting economic regimentation, one thereby sets the stage for tyranny and its endless lies and injustices.
Sorry about the excessive length.
Oh, no. I was pleased by the length of your text on this topic, because I'm interested in opinions on the subject. Thank you very much! I admit that this is a trick question: How far should economic freedom go? Should banks, and asset managers like BlackRock, remain completely unregulated? And shouldn't the formation of monopolies be prohibited by law? And what about Pfizer? And, what should happen to the unions when they demand certain regulations? Should they be banned so that a company can develop freely?
The subject of cause and effect in economic activity is complex, and not at all self evident. Monopolies cannot occur in an authentically free market--at least not in the oppressive sense that people assume in using the word. The basic reason boils down to the fact that people can always so "No" and seek out alternatives. A monopoly requires the power to extract from customers a "monopoly price"--meaning a return over costs that is higher than the market rate of return that prevails in all other lines of productive endeavor as entrepreneurs enter production activity that yields a higher return and leave activities that afford a lower rate of return. A monopoly requires, first, an inelastic demand curve for its product, so as it raises prices it's revenues increase due to higher price more than offsetting reduced unit sales. If it attains higher revenues and rate of return due to inelasticity, it must next withstand competition, as capitalist entrepreneurs deploy capital investment into the higher rates of return endeavor, which will occur sooner or later depending on circumstances. Not every business attains an identical rate of profit. Profits will be higher or lower depending on the skill of the businessman and businesses fail frequently too. But in various lines of production the average rate of return will tend to equalize over time.
We have all been taught about the alleged abuses of various 19th century monopolists, but that history is false and is based on interpretation stemming from the idea of monopolies inevitably developing under capitalism. To take one example, John D. Rockefeller started with nothing, working as a commissioned salesman buying and selling oil rights.He was a business genius who lifted living standards for millions by developing poil refining and thereby providing cheap products such as kerosene, which he made much more abundant and inexpensive than the product it replaced which was whale oil. It's historifcfal irony that Rockefeller, whose business empire was broken up by the Federal Trade Commission, was himself a progressive ideologue who was active and influential in imposing licensing restrictions for physicians and medical schools. Rockefeller is partly to blame for nearly universal acceptance among licensed doctors of "germ theory" pseudoscience, which was installed by force by state legislatures in the 19th century.
In summary, history is necessarily interpreted and its stories spun based on theoretical ideas about cause and effect. The history of pandemics and disease outbreaks is one example. Refute the idea of invisible pathogens making people sick, and contagion is exposed as false and pandemic history falls apart. It's the same with economic history.
Black rock and other huge banks are not products of economic freedom. They are joined at the hip with the state and it's incessant Money printing, of which the banks are the first recipients and beneficiaries (as investmenet asset prices are drive up and up by the new money funneled through the bank system. The Federal Reserve system was conceived as a cartel of banks to protect them from inevitable panics and crashes that followed always on the heels of non-orchestrrated credit expansion. With the Fed regulating the rate of credit expansion among all the banks through various means, inflationary booms would then persist for much longer periods. Still the crash must finally occurs , because the inflationary boom causes misallocation of scarce capital and the distortion of relative ;prices, which make unprofitable opr marginally profitable lines of production temporarily appear to be highly profitable. The crash ends capital waste through misallocation that was caused by the inflationary monetary expansion. The ensuing recession corrects for the malinvestment caused by the inflated money supply that funded the artificial boom. At the end, the Fed steps in and bails out big banks, but some banks less favored it allows to go bankrupt. The Fed and all its activities overturn free market capital allocation and free market pricing which both are essential to productive and natural market order.
Of course, Black rock is deeply favored by the state and directly involved in its predatory activities, such as taking over black earth farmland in Ukraine.
THanks for your interest in this reasoning.
Great essay! You didn't mention it here, but I can definitely see artificial intelligence serving the interests of totalitarians in this way.
Hi Noel,
I suspect that AI uses all sorts of sleight of hand for each individual computer, i.e., completely individually, because it has already created our psychological profiles. Thank you for your kind comment.
Here is a link to a German article about AI. A nice commenter said the article is a must-read:
https://apolut.net/idrone-von-tom-oliver-regenauer/
Best wishes,
Suavek
Thanks for sharing. Interesting article on AI as a basis for behavioral manipulation. I was actually thinking of a direct parallel, however, to Arendt’s idea. As AI becomes more advanced & pervasive, we’ll be unable to distinguish reality from simulation - hence we’ll lose our ability to judge and discriminate. If all people, events, videos, photos, voices, documents, and other evidence can be perfectly simulated, would there even be a justice system, beyond what the State decrees?
I agree with you, of course. My point was simply that the effect of propaganda is more targeted, that is, tailored to each individual, and therefore the method of confusion mentioned by Hannah Arendt is not applied in a scatter gun manner. At least, that's what I suspect. For those computer owners who are not easily confused, there are probably other, and even better, methods of brainwashing.