The 2 K(C)arls

Most people have heard of Karl Marx. Most do not realize Marx had 2 visions for his economic philosophies, one early on in his life, and another towards the end of his life. Most know beyond the nuances, however, that he believed in a centrally planned economic system that forced equality of economic condition across a people, played out as Marxism, Communism, Socialism, and Fascism. Regardless of the form of ism that Karl can be noted for, all have turned out to create oppression of some kind and led to the greatest slaughter of man in the history of the world.

The other Carl, I bet, would not be known, if you asked a thousand random people. A few may recognizing the name, but confuse him with his son who was an important mathematician. I am referring to Carl Menger. His ideas led to the idea of marginal utility, developed a system of value and price based on reality, and created what is known today as the Austrian School of Economics. This school is the most fervent advocate of capitalism in economic thought.

Even though their lives overlapped not more than a few hundred miles from each other, their outlooks on economic theory, human philosophy and the way to a better world could not have been further apart. While Marx espoused the idea of centralized forced equity, Menger believed a free market was the most fundamentally fair and virtuous system of economics.

An unusual difference between Marxism and the Austrian School of Economics is in epistemology. Epistemology is the idea that there are basic truths in economics and it is more important to 'know that' than 'know how'. At first one would assume, Marxism is the epistemology, however that would be inaccurate. Although there is a dogma to Marxism, it focuses on the incessant need to change the natural order to create their utopia. However, this is precisely what gets the philosophy in trouble. Breaking down natural social order and overlaying an unnatural institution to force equity ends in tyranny. No one argues that there is a need to know how, but that should be reserved for the non-social sciences where experimentation does not lead to mass murder. The Austrian School believes there are some universal truths to a society and to "know that", man can focus on the tools that bring about the greatest social value.

The fundamental difference between the left and right today is this epistemology. The left want to "dial the knobs" and are hell bent on finding a solution to mans suffering and continually create crisis to force social equity and move towards their elusive utopia. The right believes once you start forcing anything outside the 3 Natural Laws, societal benefits break down and oppression follows. In other words, "knowing how" to create a better society has given us Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and the French Revolution. The "knowing what" gave us Jefferson, Washington, Paine and the American Revolution.

Despite the media elites, universities, and some in our governments love affair with interventionist economics, and the knowing how, Carl Menger gave us the knowing what. We need to go back and learn as much as we can about the realities of economics and human nature to do a better job to promote those economic thoughts that brings about a better world - that of capitalism. And we should thank people like Carl Menger, Ayn Rand, Ludvig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard, among many others as great defenders of liberty and laissez-faire government as the greatest opportunity for man to thrive.

Greed vs Avarice

The term greed is used ad nauseam by populist politicians and others wanting to denigrate the idea of mans natural desire to better themselves. Where it becomes a negative is only when it comes at the detriment of others. That word is not greed but avarice.

Avarice means covetousness. In other words accumulating wealth through control, manipulation, fraud and force of others. It is not the desire for more that is the problem, it is the desire for more to the detriment of others that is the sin.

Capitalism is based on the desire for more, but has nothing to do with avarice. Capitalists know avarice is damaging in the long run to the capitalist system and is seldom practiced. For this reason, institutional avarice seldom occurs in the private sector for very long. However, avarice rears its ugly head in the Public sector constantly.

Let me be clear. There are crooks and flawed people that allow money to control them to the point of harming others rights or property. But in the private sector, this is the exception, not the rule in a free society. The only place where avarice is allowed to flourish unfettered is in the Government. To better understand that point, look at all the legislation that penalizes success, redistribution of wealth with the progressive tax code, all the entitlements for only certain people of a ethnic, racial, economic, and even sometimes political standing. Note the report that came out today that counties that voted for the Democrat candidate for President in the last election are averaging double the stimulus money per person as those states that voted for the Republican candidate. Conspiracy - no, ideological favoritism and avarice - yes.

Avarice appears to be a corner stone of certain economic philosophies. Socialism uses class warfare, Fascism uses ethnic or labor divisiveness, Keynesian's use the "we know better" for the "better good" position. All display avarice. When the individual is dehumanized into the collective, avarice runs a muck. Avarice is that utopia where man gets to play a god and determine who gets what.

The next time someone says you are greedy, ask them, if they know the difference between greed and avarice.