Egoism
Individualism
Sovereignty
Splendor

(These ideas are explicated in this sloppy manifesto)

 
Please don't eat the "price-gougers"...

I've been flat out for days and days, but I'm tethered to my fax machine right now, so I wanted to take a moment to tackle this.

Richard Nikoley has a post up citing an op-ed by John Stossel on the moral goodness of so-called "price gouging." Stossel makes the obvious point that, without "price gougers," inventories of avidly desired commodities would disappear instantly in a crisis. (In fact, they would have been bought up by "hoarders," who, for now at least, are not the supposed bad guys the "price gougers" are portrayed to be.) There have been a few of these kinds of anti-anti-"gouging" opinion pieces lately, and the people who live in or around FreeMarketSylvania have been comforted to have at least a few totems of good sense in the vast forests of pernicious nonsense.

But: Stossel is wrong in his moral argument. In fact, as a matter of "utilitarian collective interest" (ugh! it unpacks to noise), consumers are better served by an unfettered price system than by any sort of command economy. See Adam Smith, et endlessly cetera. But this has nothing to do with the morality of the issue. The reason that Mr. QuikTrip has the right to set whatever price he wants for his gasoline has nothing to do with utility, nothing to do with the collective, and noting to do with anyone's interests except his own. The reason that Mr. QuikTrip can price his gasoline as he chooses is BECAUSE IT IS HIS PROPERTY. That's all. Whether it's being his property is good or bad--in some would-be dictator's opinion--for other people--or even for himself!--is irrelevant. He can do what he wants with his own property BECAUSE IT IS HIS. Not yours. Not mine. Not John Stossel's. Not the legislature's. What business is any of this of yours? That's easy. It is never other than NONE of your damned business what Mr. QuikTrip--or anyone else--does with his own property.

What Smith said, in essence, was, "Should the king choose to set us free, it will be better for everyone, including the king." This is morally and ontologically retarded. If the king can regulate your freedom, then you actually have no freedom, merely license, which license can be revoked at any time. And whether or not freedom promotes any sort of supposed economic good, for everyone or for anyone, is irrelevant. Liberty is the only condition in which human beings can thrive as human beings. What Smith--and every alleged "freedom-loving" utilitarian economist ever since--is saying is, "I have no moral argument to offer against cannibalism, but it is normally impractical." Now that's a powerful argument for human liberty!

This may seem like a quibble, but it's not. As Kyle Bennett points out in the comments to Richard's post, the battle is always individualism versus collectivism. (Kyle gets the ontology of this wrong and it leads him badly astray; if I get time, I'd like to address that.) All of economics, not just the Communist half, is a branch of collectivism. Even the Austrians slip again and again into defending an alleged "utilitarian collective interest." Until we as libertarians learn that we must always carry the debate back to individualism--no matter how many points we seem to be scoring with collectivist arguments--the game will always be theirs and we will always be fighting a rear-guard action.
posted by Greg Swann at 1:15 PM

 
BetterVegas: Project CityCenter makes the New York Times....

You've been reading about it here for almost a year, but now the inelegantly named Project City Center is really news:

The developers want CityCenter to stand out in the Las Vegas landscape. 'It has to be distinctive and it has to be more urban and it has to feel contemporary,' said Terry Lanni, the chairman and chief executive of MGM Mirage.

Each of the architects involved was given wide latitude to come up with their designs, although they must ultimately work together. 'They were free to express themselves, in almost an unlimited fashion,' Mr. Baldwin said.

'We did throttle them back a little if they went too far,' he continued. 'One of the residential towers was too strong in contrast to the large casino-hotel. We wanted it to look like a neighbor, not a building that is trying to outdo every other building in CityCenter.'

Stanton Eckstut, the founding principal of Ehrenkrantz, Eckstut & Kuhn Architects, which created the master plan, says the complex is intended to feel like an authentic city center, with supermarkets and sidewalks. 'It will be a real urban district of variety and complexity that borrows from traditional cities,' he said. Although there is ample free parking, he added, 'walking is stressed throughout.'

Mr. Lanni noted that 'Las Vegas has never had a center or a core.' But, he continued, 'By having iconic architects of world-renowned fame, we believe we have an opportunity to make a place people accept as the center of Las Vegas.'

A key test of the design philosophy will be supermarkets. Not convenience stores, but 50,000sf vendors of raw food intended to be cooked at home. That will determine if the residents are actually in residence, or simply tourists with a tenuous exit strategy. But even if Project CityCenter passes this test, it still won't be an actual city. A city has commerce--bank buildings, insurance buildings, a stock exchange--and industry. After everything, this will still just be extended-stay-Vegas, vacations that last for years--maybe even with home cookin'. Even so, it's a remarkable accomplishment and a step in the right direction for 21st century urban living.
posted by Greg Swann at 6:44 AM

SplendorQuests