The Myth of Unplanned Economic Development

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

One of the heroes of libertarian ideology is the railroad robber baron entrepreneur James J. Hill. He is contrasted with the other robber barons entrepreneurs who built the intercontinental railroad. The big difference is that Hill did not leverage public financing to construct his empire organization.

Hill derived his wealth from his serfs yeoman farmers who settled on his land to raise abundant harvests for transport to distant markets on Hills road. The settlers were forced encouraged to sell their produce to grain elevator shysters entrepreneurs at rock bottom market prices. These pilfering enterprising middlemen held on to the grain until a more favorable price was offered on the grain market and they obtained rate rebates by shipping in bulk. (They also bilked optimized grain prices from farmers by underrating the quality of the grain.)

When we look at the surface of Hill's story, it appears that no public planning went into this development. The libertarian historian has conveniently avoided looking at the planning that took place years before Hill obtained his fiefdom property. Racist Forward-looking politicians deliberately expropriated acquired the land from its native inhabitants for the purpose of economic development. Hill and his settlers maintained their holdings under the protective hand of federal and state thugs military personnel, lest it fall back into the hands of the original proprietors uncivilized people.

Although the Solyndra investment appears to be a piece of failed public planning, it has more of the earmarks of traditional robber baron private development. Back in the day, a thieving an enterprising operator would run his business into the ground and sell off the depleted stocks to a shifty trusted new partner, leaving the original investors with little or no return on their capital.

Were it not for public planning, this Internet space would not be available for us to use. In fact, I would not have the capacity to communicate as well as I do had it not been for public planning.

Is there really such a thing as unplanned economic development?

Comments

Re: YOU didn't get the point.

[russj.livejournal.com]

+1

Re: YOU didn't get the point.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

In the history I'm from capitalism arose with the collaboration of the state. Which means either Libertarianism can only always be speculative or like Communism it will always be something that never really exists even when put into practice by zealous adherents of it. Ya'll keep up the eternal banner of the John Birch Society, the rest of us who've left the 1960s behind in the past where it belongs will be ignoring you.

Re: YOU didn't get the point.

[zebra24.livejournal.com]

To be short better to discuss what is right and wrong than what was the history.
Better question what kind of collaboration between the state and the people is right or wrong.
To be clear that there is a big variety of regimes between capitalistic democracy and libertarianism from one side and between capitalistic democracy and socialism/communism from another side.
Moreover all three definitions is an abstraction when you apply it to the reality. That's why you wonder why FOX call it communism. There is no communism at all, but it is a step toward definition of it.

Seems like you agree with the current state just because it is what we have now. Probably you think that social benefits won't move the country into socialism/communism.
I prefer don't play with the fire and prevent this conversion while it is possible yet.

I believe that is it possible to build more fair and wealthy community based on Libertarian principles. I believe it could be done step by step evolutionary.
There is a clear understanding now that man's life and freedom isn't subject to "democratic decision through the vote".
You can't enslave/kill somebody just because majority voted, it is forbidden as idea in society.

I hope some days same will be said about voting on taxation for anybody except yourself.

Re: YOU didn't get the point.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

Glenn Beck called and wants the plot summary for his latest book back.

Re: YOU didn't get the point.

[zebra24.livejournal.com]

You just asked not to call you a liar.
:)

Re: YOU didn't get the point.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

X: "Good day, Sir."
Y: "It's evening..."
X: "Who are you calling a liar!?"

Re: YOU didn't get the point.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

In the world where I come from the historical communists killed millions of people in the perfect sincerity that to obliterate the Old Man and make way for their New Man they were doing the right thing. Because of the real communists, men like Stalin, Mao, Tito, Trotsky, Yezhov, Beria, people died by the millions. If you are doing this to deliberately minimize what the Soviet Union and its band of thugs and goons did then you frankly make a horrible argument that can only be met with the sharpest contempt as one of the most morally bankrupt and depraved kinds of hackery I hear someone offer, a depraved hackery of an "argument" common to so-called conservatives and libertarians.

That's not really what you're doing is it?

Re: YOU didn't get the point.

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

In the history I'm from capitalism arose with the collaboration of the state.

You have about you the whif of the neoconservative's selective memory for history then. Move along then, pay no attention to that Lex Mercatoria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria) behind the curtain...

Property and rights precede the State. Theoretically, if you accept the Hobbesian rationale for the State, that the State arose to preserve these things then that implies the truth of the idea that property and rights precede the State. Of course, even if you accept the Oppenheimer and Nock view, that the State arose out of conquest, then rights and property precede the State as things that were plundered by the entities which evolved into States.

Re: YOU didn't get the point.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Property and rights preceded your state, but they do not exist outside of an enforcing entity. Any such entity could be considered a state.