However, much has happened since it went up, including the Blogger outage. Scroll down for a report on that. More new posts will be added below this one. The essay below is the conclusion of the ninth part in a series by Takuan Seiyo.
Read Rothbard's introduction. If men were like ants, there would be no interest in human freedom. If individual men, like ants, were uniform, interchangeable, devoid of specific personality traits of their own, then who would care whether they were free or not?
Who, indeed, would care if they lived or died? The glory of the human race is the uniqueness of each individual, the fact that every person, though similar in many ways to others, possesses a completely individuated personality of his own.
It is the fact of each person's uniqueness — the fact that no two people can be wholly interchangeable — that makes each and every man irreplaceable and that makes us care whether he lives or dies, whether he is happy or oppressed.
And, finally, it is the fact that these unique personalities need freedom for their full development that constitutes one of the major arguments for a free society.
Perhaps a world exists somewhere where intelligent beings are fully formed in some sort of externally determined cages, with no need for internal learning or choices by the individual beings themselves. But man is necessarily in a different situation. Individual human beings are not born or fashioned with fully formed knowledge, values, goals, or personalities; they must each form their own values and goals, develop their personalities, and learn about themselves and the world around them.
Every man must have freedom, must have the scope to form, test, and act upon his own choices, for any sort of development of his own personality to take place.
He must, in short, be free in order that he may be fully human. In a sense, even the most frozen and totalitarian civilizations and societies have allowed at least a modicum of scope for individual choice and development.
Even the most monolithic of despotisms have had to allow at least a bit of "space" for freedom of choice, if only within the interstices of societal rules. The freer the society, of course, the less has been the interference with individual actions, and the greater the scope for the development of each individual.
The freer the society, then, the greater will be the variety and the diversity among men, for the more fully developed will be every man's uniquely individual personality. On the other hand, the more despotic the society, the more restrictions on the freedom of the individual, the more uniformity there will be among men and the less the diversity, and the less developed will be the unique personality of each and every man.
In a profound sense, then, a despotic society prevents its members from being fully human. Society itself must be sufficiently developed.
No one, for example, can become a creative physicist on a desert island or in a primitive society. For, as an economy grows, the range of choice open to the producer and to the consumer proceeds to multiply greatly.
But there is another reason that full development of the creative powers of each individual cannot occur in a primitive or undeveloped society, and that is the necessity for a wide-ranging division of labor.
No one can fully develop his powers in any direction without engaging in specialization. The primitive tribesman or peasant, bound to an endless round of different tasks in order to maintain himself, could have no time or resources available to pursue any particular interest to the full.
He had no room to specialize, to develop whatever field he was best at or in which he was most interested. Two hundred years ago, Adam Smith pointed out that the developing division of labor is a key to the advance of any economy above the most primitive level.
A necessary condition for any sort of developed economy, the division of labor is also requisite to the development of any sort of civilized society.Sep 23, · College has become virtually a precondition for upward mobility. Men with only a high school diploma earn about a fifth less than they did 35 years ago.
The gap between the earnings of students with a college degree and . The 91 most important economic charts to watch in For the fourth year in a row Maclean’s presents its year-end Chartapalooza, your guide to making sense of the economy in the year ahead. Richer and Poorer Accounting for inequality.
Economic inequality has been an academic specialty at least since Gini first put chalk to chalkboard. The American political imagination has.
The Vanishing Middle Class: Prejudice and Power in a Dual Economy (The MIT Press) [Peter Temin] on lausannecongress2018.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Why the United States has developed an economy divided between rich and poor and how racism helped bring this about.
The United States is becoming a nation of rich and poor. Contrasting SMI methodology with other higher education ranking methods. Unlike the popular periodicals, we did not assign a priori a percentage weight to the five variables in the SMI formula and add those values together to obtain a score.
The inequality produced by the market is a key part of how the market moves forward, enriching all of us in the process.
And that’s why the middle class is shrinking: the rich, through the competitive market, have helped make the middle class richer.