nrh@inmet.UUCP (06/01/85)
>/**** inmet:net.politics / whuxl!orb / 10:42 am May 28, 1985 ****/ >I repeat the phrase "blind adherence to the free enterprise myth" because >that's what is repeated by Michael Sykora and many others on the net. >When Mr. Sykora suggests that it is some sort of crime for *anyone* to pay >taxes then I find this a ludicrous assumption even on the part of many >Libertarians who in general support the myth that somehow leaving the >government totally out of the economy will resort in the laissez faire >utopia. I and other libertarians believe rather strongly that "Utopia is not an option." For you to use the term in this context is certainly straw-man-ism, considering how many times it's been pointed out that Utopia is not what libertarians are trying for. >When others suggest that public education should be scrapped >despite strong evidence that it has been a key factor in the growth of our >economy in the past I also find this flying in the face of reality. I must have missed the "strong evidence". Of course, a heroin addict might make a similar argument with regards to the benefits of his last fix -- it helped him to get through the day, no? "Evidence" that public education is a net benefit would surely have to be based on a comparison between public education's effects, and the effects of NOT having public education, including the formation of private alternatives, the benefits of lower taxation, and so forth I'm not familiar with any such evidence, but if Mr. Sevener would care to deliver some references (or a retraction, please)..... >When Mr. Sykora admits that he has never heard of the "cobweb effect" by >which a free market can develop wild oscillations (all following the >theoretical formulations of neoclassical "free market" economics) >then I wonder about his understanding of the "free market" that he touts >as the answer to all economic problems in general. *I* have heard of the "cobweb effect". I believe it is a hypothetical economic effect, thoroughly demolished in this forum by Daniel Mck., as depending upon (as I recall) farmers not realizing their greater economic interests..... Of course, nobody need know much about mistaken theory to be said to have a good grasp of correct theory. I never did get the full benefit of phlogistron (heat fluid) theory in college physics, but that didn't means I didn't learn CORRECT (or at least, more recent) physics. Sykora may or may not know his way around free market economics, but even Daniel Mck. probably hasn't heard of ALL of the invalid ideas advanced to attack it.
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (06/04/85)
> > >/**** inmet:net.politics / whuxl!orb / 10:42 am May 28, 1985 ****/ > >I repeat the phrase "blind adherence to the free enterprise myth" because > >that's what is repeated by Michael Sykora and many others on the net. > >When Mr. Sykora suggests that it is some sort of crime for *anyone* to pay > >taxes then I find this a ludicrous assumption even on the part of many > >Libertarians who in general support the myth that somehow leaving the > >government totally out of the economy will resort in the laissez faire > >utopia. > Alright, then you *don't* call it "Utopia". The idea that you can have a situation of: no taxes no inflation no poverty no unemployment no monopoly power no pollution (without government intervention) no health hazards in the workplace (without govt intervention) etc. Whatever you wish to call it, I consider totally untenable. All of these have been advanced as likely outcomes of Libertarianism on this net. I would say such notions are, if not called "utopia", definitely utopian. tim sevener whuxl!orb
vip@philabs.UUCP (V. I. P.) (06/06/85)
Sorry to be such a snag, but if anyone is curious what kind of environment is created by libertarianism, I suggest they take a look at Haiti or, say, Guatemala. I am personally experienced with Haiti, so I will use it as an example here. What has happened in Haiti is exactly what's happening in New York under the Reagan/Koch administrations. There are basically only two classes, the very rich and the very poor. (Of course, the very rich are not necessary all that rich by American standards.) The rich prey on the poor, I have a friend there who has about 6 serveants, and multi-national companies, such as, Motorola, Xerox, General Foods, etc. chew them up and spit them out. I've seen peasants (that's what they call them) being beaten up in the street by bourgeois business men because they tried to sell them a box of Chicklets. Not too unlike the old robber baron days here in the United States, just on a smaller scale. If you are a libertarian (true libertarian) you are probably opposed to any kind of law that attempts to regulate your behavior. Once you visit a place like Haiti you will realize the dangers of this. Brian Day
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/06/85)
>/* vip@philabs.UUCP (V. I. P.) / 10:06 pm Jun 5, 1985 */ >Sorry to be such a snag, but if anyone is curious what kind of >environment is created by libertarianism, I suggest they take a >look at Haiti or, say, Guatemala. I am personally experienced with >Haiti, so I will use it as an example here. Haiti and Guatemala are much further from libertarianism than the U.S. > . . . I've seen peasants (that's what they >call them) being beaten up in the street by bourgeois business men >because they tried to sell them a box of Chicklets. In a libertarian society such behavior would be against the law, of course. >Not too unlike the old robber baron days here in the United States, just >on a smaller scale. If you are a libertarian (true libertarian) you >are probably opposed to any kind of law that attempts to regulate >your behavior. Wrong. Libertarianism is against gov't involvement in other than defense and police activties only. Next time you post something about libertarianism, try to learn just a little bit about it first. > Brian Day Mike Sykora
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/12/85)
> > > > >/**** inmet:net.politics / whuxl!orb / 10:42 am May 28, 1985 ****/ > > >I repeat the phrase "blind adherence to the free enterprise myth" because > > >that's what is repeated by Michael Sykora and many others on the net. > > >When Mr. Sykora suggests that it is some sort of crime for *anyone* to pay > > >taxes then I find this a ludicrous assumption even on the part of many > > >Libertarians who in general support the myth that somehow leaving the > > >government totally out of the economy will resort in the laissez faire > > >utopia. > > A "crime for *anyone* to pay taxes"? Nonsense. It's the way the taxes are collected that is criminal; it is criminal that the government forces people to pay taxes that are ostensibly "for our own good". Don't distort what libertarians say --- it makes it hard to believe that you are sincere and honest. > Alright, then you *don't* call it "Utopia". The idea that you can have > a situation of: > no taxes Many of the expenses which are currently paid through governmental taxation are likely to be privately provided services or charities, which will be paid for by user fees and freely given contributions. Overall, the total of these is likely to be less than the taxes now collected because of the higher efficiency of private services, and because many of the "services" now provided by government are methods of redistributing wealth from taxpayers to those with political pull (mostly NOT poor people, incidentally.) > no inflation Inflation is the result of expansion of the money supply faster than an increase in the supply of goods and services. Even a money system based on precious metals is subject to inflation if gold miners suddenly find and exploit a previously unknown source. However, this is much less of a problem that the governmentally induced inflation which has been besieging through much of this century. > no poverty Libertarianism does not assert that poverty will go away; poverty will always exist because of the individual differences in ambition, intelligence, character, and to some extent luck --- "no poverty" is a straw man, and you know it. > no unemployment Frictional unemployment is a necessary part of free economy, and if unemployment gets too low, it makes it difficult for employers to hire workers, reducing production capacity. (Although driving up the wages of workers can be a pleasant thing --- and low unemployment rates might be quite advantageous.) Structural unemployment is largely the result of minimum wage laws and government restrictions on entrepreneurial activities by the poor. A minor factor may be the tendency of governments to encourage helplessness by people with limited job skills. > no monopoly power I am hesitant to say that *all* monopolies are the result of government intervention in the economy, but I have no hesitation saying that I have yet to find an example of a monopoly that wasn't the result of government granted power or subsidies. (Of course, remember that the biggest most ruthless monopoly of all is the government.) > no pollution (without government intervention) The argument (from me at least) is against prior restraint as a solution to pollution --- removing the current legal protections for large polluters is more effective than prior restraint. > no health hazards in the workplace (without govt intervention) > etc. This subject has been thoroughly addressed by myself and others in previous postings. Read them and criticize them piece by piece. > I would say such notions are, if not called "utopia", definitely > utopian. > tim sevener whuxl!orb
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/13/85)
>/* cramer@kontron.UUCP / 6:55 pm Jun 11, 1985 */ >Inflation is the result of expansion of the money supply faster than an >increase in the supply of goods and services. Even a money system based >on precious metals is subject to inflation if gold miners suddenly find >and exploit a previously unknown source. I expect that a system of competing, private monetary systems (sort of an extension of current securities markets) would do the job best. Such firms would be subject to harsh discipline in the marketplace should they attempt to inflate their currency and thus devalue the holdings of people and institutions who had bought their money. In addition, such actions might well constitute fraud, and subject the inflators to legal penalties. Mike Sykora