Reisman the dim bulb
George Reisman, he of the thick-headed attacks on Kevin Carson, is once more striving his utmost to personify the silly caricatures of free market advocacy that statists love to smear libertarians with. This time, Reisman’s target is that which he would have us believe is a hideous source of doom for all mankind, compact flourescent bulbs. Oh, my…
Did Reisman choose to advocate for consumer choice and merely attack efforts to ban incandescent bulbs? No.
Did he attack the role of state subsidized energy monopolists in promoting a potential source of toxic mercury problems? No, not George Reisman. No sirree.
He doesn’t find them aesthetically pleasing, presumably based on the color of the light produced. This alone, to Reisman’s mind, makes them bad for everybody (with carefully, and snottily, noted exceptions) and evidence of an evil green plot against “…our entire standard of living”, which he then proceeds to denounce with comedic vigor.
I’m reminded of General Jack D. Ripper from Dr. Strangelove warning about the supposed communist conspiracy’s flouridated water threat to “our precious bodily fluids” — in mockery of an attitude that, ironically, was basically responsible for cutting off rational debate about the merits vs drawbacks of water flouridation (and perhaps local water monopolies).
You’d think an economist at the Mises Institute, of all people, would recognize that markets are all about individual choice and preference. If he doesn’t like CFLs, he doesn’t have to buy them (pending an actual ban on incandescent bulbs, which I certainly wouldn’t support). It’s certainly no reason for an impassioned tirade, outside of the pages of Consumer Reports perhaps.
This guy makes us look bad, IMO. Can somebody take up a collection to buy him a clue?
Share This
Sheesh. I’ve been using CFLs for ten years. I have only had to change one once. I find that the light from them works better for me than incandescents (I like the whiter light). I’ve got them in the lamp next to me. A beautiful Arts-and Crafts style lamp, I might add.
Is Reisman opposed to free markets? I oppose restrictions on light bulb use too. There are better ways to get people to use energy-efficent bulbs than laws.
What will be better is when LED bulbs get cheap enough to be affordable. A hundred watt equivalent bulb would only use one or two watts. And they are easy to make into many colors. And they don’t have any mercury. And LED’s last nearly forever.
The last thing in the WORLD I want to do is offer any sort of defense for that crank, but I think what pisses him off is the environmental, anti-comfort, anti-civilization attitudes of the fringe environmental movement that he believes motivates all these changes. He doesn’t seem to understand that this is a market. I took him to task for similar thinking here. And of course, Reisman’s not unique.
Reisman seems to me to be slipping into an almost delusional conspiracy theory promoter. Last week it was an out of context quote by Maurice Strong that he took for gospel and an admission that the UN and the environmental movement are plotting to return us to the stone age…
I think he has gone quite mad.
I don’t understand why Spangler is attacking Reisman on this. The point that Reisman is making is that there should not be regulations on what kind of light bulbs people are allowed to manufacture and sell. He said “Australia and Canada have already enacted laws or regulations that will make these bulbs mandatory within a few years. Efforts are underway to do the same thing here in the United States.” That’s what he’s upset about. If someone wants to use more energy than he needs, even if it’s contributing toward unnecessary depletion of the world’s energy resources, that should be his right.
Spangler says “You’d think an economist at the Mises Institute, of all people, would recognize that markets are all about individual choice and preference.” Well, that’s exactly what Reisman is advocating. Free individual choice.
His other point is that no one should feel morally obligated to sacrifice their self-interest for others. He’s saying it’s ok to maximize one’s self-interest guilt free. If using a bulb that uses a lot of energy serves your self-interest better than one that uses less energy, then use one that uses more energy. If you want to drive a gas guzzler because it’s more comfortable or safer, then do so. And, so on. Do not allow anyone to make you feel guilty for pursuing your self-interest. Sounds like healthy egoism to me.
Actually, Devon, Reisman made his point quite clear:
That people might be prepared to voluntarily give these things up for some perceived benefit - a market phenomenon - rubs him the wrong way. Reisman does not understand that his kneejerk, emotional reaction doesn’t change the fact that it is a market, voluntary phenomenon. He is actually attacking the conservationist mindset, blaming it for the impending “totalitarian green State” instead of applauding their introduction of some market principles into the issue of conservation (we have a long way to go on that, but it’s ridiculous for an economist to bring aesthetics into the discussion, in any case).
Of course - but the cost of that energy is artificially lowered by state intervention. So he has the right to use as much energy as he wants, provided he pays the full, market cost of that energy. Otherwise, if he’s not paying that full cost, somebody is - and that’s plunder.
There’s nothing wrong with a responsible individual, realizing that he’s not paying for the full effects of his actions, to limit those actions. He’s under no obligation to do so, of course, but we shouldn’t condemn the good-faith attempt to voluntarily assist the situation.
Unless your a Randroid who thinks humans are selfish, robotic consumption machines.
Of course, but his definition of “self-interest” is so narrow and atomic that it’s laughable. People are authentically interested in environmental decline, and simply telling them to get on with life as usual is no answer.
I’m not saying that lightbulbs are the answer, I’m saying let the market figure it out. But let’s stop pretending that one’s comfort is the ONLY dynamic in play here - because that’s just not the case.
Also, whether or not somebody feels “guilt” is a matter of personal reflection. Indeed, I could see that somebody who insists on acting as if his comfort is the most important goal in world history feeling “guilty”. That’s a sign of a healthy subconscious mind.
Why wouldn’t anyone think that their own comfort is “the most important goal in world history?” I can’t think of any greater cause than my own comfort. Anyone who would feel guilty for that would be the victim of manipulation. There is no reason to feel guilty. There is surely reason for YOU to try to make others feel guilty for it or say that they don’t have a healthy mind, because it’s in your self-interest that others doesn’t deplete the world’s resources. Guilt is a tool. But, the rational individual doesn’t fall for it. He lives on as an egoist, guilt free.
re: “The point that Reisman is making is that there should not be regulations on what kind of light bulbs people are allowed to manufacture and sell.”
That’s not true at all. Rather, Reisman (who was reportedly close to Rand) is still going through the same cultish pattern of malarkey everyone who can’t seperate the wheat from the chaff in Rand’s thought goes through. He doesn’t like CFLs on an aesthetic level, therefore CFLs are supposedly bad for everyone. It’s as if I personally found asparagus disgusting and went about insisting that not buying asparagus was THE correct pro-market position. It’s intellectual fraud.
But isn’t that just a recommendation? He’s certainly entitled to be able to make recommendations to people. He’s giving us a review of CFL’s. They’re not as aesthetically pleasing to him and doesn’t think they would be to others as well who are particular about light. He’s not saying people ought to be forced to follow his recommendations.
The context of this is a Mises Institute blog post.
Does that mean there is no price you wouldn’t pay - or foist on others - to achieve your own comfort? Or are there, in fact, greater causes - like justice, or learning, or love?
I understand this solipsist, Randian argument you are making. You are nobody’s sacrificial animal. Bully for you.
After you get over that, come back to the real world, where there are other people besides you. Your comfort may be the highest cause for you, but I deny your assertion that you can have it at my expense. And when you pollute and waste without regard for others, you are a mooch and a thief.
Seriously, what is it about Randroids that they think, just because they’re bold enough to say something ridiculous, that I’m supposed to fall over myself and stutter out some lame, confounded, James Taggart-like response? Saying your comfort is your highest ideal doesn’t prove anything about your values or your ethics - it just proves your petulant enough to annoy instead of debate me.
So do psychopaths.
You seem to be conflating guilt with shame. Shame is social. Guilt is self-inflicted, when one’s actions don’t jive with one’s principles.
I don’t claim that you should feel guilty. I claim that you have principles that don’t add up. The power you’re so eager to waste has a cost that you don’t pay fully, because of subsidies, regulation, and a cartelized electric market.
You’re not paying the full cost of it, and therefore you’re participating in plunder. No, it’s not entirely your choice, but your lack of reflection shows that you’re less of an egoist and more of a know-nothing.
Like I said, attacks aren’t going to work. I’m going to go on living to maximize my self-interest regardless of the effect on the rest of the world. And, I feel darn good about it. I have one life to live, and if I leave nothing for you or future generations I couldn’t care less.
Devon’s comments nicely illustrate why so many people view libertarians as being selfish nutcases out of touch with humanity.
You incorrectly assume I’m a libertarian. I’m a pure Egoist. Whatever works for me is what I support, whether it’s non-aggression or aggression, in any particular case.
That doesn’t mean I don’t support mostly free markets. I certainly don’t support absolutely free markets. But I think a good amount of economic freedom is in my self-interest. It allow me to become wealthy without going to jail for it and allows me to consume to my hearts delight. I think it’s silly to be a libertarian for libertarianism’s sake. Why support anything unless it’s in your self interest? Certainly, absolute libertarianism is not in my self-interest, and I doubt it’s in anyone else’s either. Anyone who thinks it is, is I think deluding themselves. Aggression and freedom can both be in one’s self-interest. You just have to analyze where it’s best to apply either one.
Of course. We’re not questioning the wisdom or propriety of egoism. We’re questioning your analysis of this particular situation and your superficial application of egoism. You haven’t followed your own principles to their logical conclusion.
If I was immortal I would probably be concerned about depleting the world’s resources, because I would have to suffer the consequences. But, since I’m not immortal I couldn’t care less. I won’t be around. I won’t sacrifice my self-gratification for you, for future generations, or for any ethical principle whatsoever. I understand that that upsets you, but that’s how I choose to live and it serves me well.
That doesn’t sound like Stirnerite egoism to me.
I never said I was a Stirnerite. I’m not going to chain myself to following anyone’s version of Egoism but my own.
That doesn’t mean I don’t have some similarities with him though:
“Egoism [says]…Take hold, and take what you require! With this the war of all against all is declared. I alone decide what I will have.” -Max Stirner
“I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!” -Max Stirner
“Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property.” -Max Stirner
I’m actually reading “The Ego and His Own” right now, so I appreciate the elucidation.
One thing that I’m struggling with presently is this: while egoists are very clear about not defining their interests or values according to anybody else’s authority, it seems to me that your interests and values are derived naturally from an understand of “who you are”. Identity, as I see it, is not a fixed construct, but changes throughout life - oftentimes drastically. Because who you think you are defines what you think your interests are - if for no other reason because it defines where “you” end and where “everything else” starts - it follows that if you want to apply philosophical rigor to your approach to the world, you need to get clear on who “you” are.
What are your thoughts on that? From a personal P.O.V., is the domination of the world by one’s own values and interests something that is a fixed goal, or are there different conceptions of identity that move the lines on what one’s self interest will necessarily entail? I personally don’t find the space between me and my fellow man to be so daunting and irreconcilable as you seem to.
Sorry for the hostility, but the terms of the debate are easily misidentified when common interests are rejected out of hand, as egoists tend to do.
Who “I am” may arguably change, but one thing that does not change and that I cannot forsee changing is my foundational desire. That desire is to be happy. It’s probably the same for you. You can verify this. Look at things you do in your life, and ask yourself for each one, “why am I doing this?” or “Why am I not doing this?” For example, “Why did I buy a car?” Answer: “Because I need it to go to work.” And, so on. If you keep asking “Why” you’ll finally end up with your most basic desire. I’m betting you will find that it is your desire to be happy. Why do you want to be happy? Because it makes you happy to be happy. Happiness needs no justification, unlike everything else. If your foundational desire is to be happy, then if you’re perfectly rational, you won’t take any action or inaction that works against that goal. You’ll analyze everything you do to make sure everything aligns with your foundational goal. You’ll discard those things that work against it including philosophies that require you to sacrifice your pursuit of happiness for some other cause.
Now, it may not be the case that happiness is not your most basic desire, so you’ll have to find that out for yourself. Actually you’ll have to choose it for yourself. Just know that if you choose something other than happiness then you’ll simply be less happier than you could be. You’ll be living your life to pursue some other goal. But why would do this?
When I say I live to pursue my self-interest, I’m simply saying I live to increase my happiness. I’m not going to sacrifice my happiness anything. Why would I? I’m going to reject everything philosophy or morality that requires me to do anything other than that which maximizes my happiness. If happiness is my goal, then it behooves me to be an Egoist.
Devon, I read this and all I see are two things:
1) A rehashing of the basic insight of praxeology — that conscious human action necessarily presupposes a goal for that action (in that even seemingly random adolescent horseplay is goal directed action when you consider that the goal chosen by the individuals in question is “fun”).
2) An evasive gloss over the matter of “happinesss”. Saying “self-interest” is “happiness” is a simplistic cop-out in this case because realization of goals derived from ANY values an individual may hold fall under the umbrella of “self-interest” in that a self values their achievement. Committing murder on an ongoing but prudent basis is in the “self-interest” of a serial killer in that sense.
What seems to be more a matter of actual contention is how whack (or not) the *particular* values are that happen to make YOU happy when realized in the form of goals achieved. So when you said “I won’t sacrifice my self-gratification for you, for future generations, or for any ethical principle whatsoever.” you were necessarily implying that you, at least, find no gratification in the advancement of ethical principle.
You can expect to encounter criticism over that from those who do and who perceive your own devaluation of ethics as contrary to their own self interest — among them, myself. To the extent that rational ethics tend to promote the happiness of far greater numbers, I would think we’ll have a valid point.
I choose to live to maximize my happiness. I have choose my self-interest to be my happiness. It’s very simple. If you don’t like my choice, that’s fine. There is nothing to debate.
That doesn’t mean I won’t promote ethical systems. I’ll tell you it’s wrong to steal, but disingenuously. I’ll steal from you behind your back. It’s in my self-interest that no one gets away with stealing from me, but that I get away with stealing from everyone else. Of course I wouldn’t tell you this if you knew who I was. This is an anonymous forum. I’m simply here because I like philosophy.
If what you advocate is not what you actually believe, then you’re not even an anarcho-capitalist, besides not being a libertarian — as both natural rights (Rothbardian) and utilitarian (Friedmanite) an-caps are advocates of stateless legal systems that make no special exceptions for themselves personally. What you would be is someone who, for some bizarre reason, finds it advantageous to disguise yourself as an an-cap. I could speculate further, but I don’t see that as productive in any sense. After all, you’ve already admitted to being both amoral in a general sense and a frequent liar.
Actually, Brad, for some wierd reason I’m enjoying this.
OK, Devon, so you’re saying that no matter what “you” are, your desire to maximize your happiness is ultimately singular. I buy that. I even buy your idea that everything we do is a deduction from what we desire, what makes us happy. Brad’s right - it’s basically praxeological. It’s almost a form of “revealed sentience” - that by our happiness-maximizing actions we realize our essential living-ness.
It seems that the key to egoism - the engine that drives one to cast off the chains of others’ values and interests - is a fundamental, uncompromising honesty with oneself first and foremost. IOW, the key enslavement is the lies one tells oneself to hide the truth, right?
So here’s what I don’t get: how can you be so incurious about who you are? Doesn’t the truth of that determine the path to your maximum happiness?
Spangler, Oh, I’m definitely a liar. Make no mistake about that. Life to me is the equivalent of a reality game show. I place no limits on myself to get what I want.
I merely called myself an ancap for the sake of argument. I can portray several different philosophies in several different discussions. Is that normal to do in debates? It’s all in good fun.
I don’t know what you mean when you say “how can you be so incurious about who you are? Doesn’t the truth of that determine the path to your maximum happiness?” Who I am? I know exactly who I am. I’m me. I’m a person that seeks happiness. I’m a person with several talents. I’m a businessperson. What do you mean by “who you are?”
Spangler, By the way, for all you know I may even be lying about being an Egoist. But does it matter? Why be so concerned about me? Why not simply be concerned about the ideas being discussed? I’m simply data on a computer screen. That’s how you should look at me. There is no soul, no consistency, no honesty behind my words. In the anarcho-capitalism discussion I’m a natural anarcho-capitalists, in this one I’m an Egoist. What am I really? It doesn’t matter.
How you define and regard yourself determines necessarily how you define and regard your interests, because the latter flow very consequentially and naturally from your identity.
I think you have a good point in regarding your own happiness as the highest good. But the most efficient path to your own happiness will go through a thorough understanding of self. After all, isn’t self all that is for you? Isn’t introspection the true conquest?
Stirner makes the argument that one must regard all outside the self and all within the self as constituents of the same identity. That to me has far reaching consequences for the kinds of actions you believe will bring you happiness, and how effective they will actually be.
That’s just semantics. Who is “me”? It doesn’t interest you to not just “name” the essence, but to investigate it?
I may be making assumptions here; please point them out.
I still don’t know what you mean by understanding of the self. What is there to understand? I’m simply an entity that prefers happiness to unhappiness. Isn’t that all that I need to understand about me? One I understand that, then I’ve found the standard of judging the rationality of every philosophy I hold, every thought I entertain, every friend I make, every trip I take, ever job I take, every statement I make,…everything I do.
Yeah, we’re obviously at different places. I won’t belabor the point. I would, however, suggest that knowledge of self is a big part of being happy. Happiness, in my experience, is founded ultimately not on doing but being.
It is important to understand what makes you happy, and to do what it is that brings fulfillment. And if you are a perfectly happy person, then I’ve nothing to say. I’m betting you’re not, and therefore I’m simply offering one alternative viewpoint.
Happiness is founding on being rather than doing? That’s not been my experience. Just sitting there and trying to think happy thoughts is only going to provide you with a mild happiness. For a more profound and exhilarating happiness, I think you need to actually do things. You have to exert yourself. If just “being” provided you with all that happiness you desired, then there would be no reason to do anything at all. Why do you do things? I’m guessing just “being” isn’t good enough for you either.
Back to my point. The only way to justify the rationality of doing any particular thing is if it’s going to be conducive toward maximizing your most foundational value, whatever that may be. Otherwise, there’s no point in doing it. Likewise for refraining from doing. And if happiness is your foundational goal, then there’s never any rational reason for sacrificing your pursuit of happiness for any “higher good,” for future generations, for some other philosopher’s moral principles, or for anything at all.
Ever heard of Buddhism? :)
I agree 100%. I still think that your happiness is going to depend upon the nature of the thing that you are, and that understanding that nature has an impact on whether or not you are efficient at achieving happiness. But I certainly understand what you’re saying.