mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (01/25/85)
Tsk, tsk, Sevener: Let's start with your title: 'McKiernan's Withering Away of the State'. Now, as I pointed out when you dragged that red herring in: >> 3) It is also NOT what I was talking about. You're reading what you WISH I >>had said, rather than what I ACTUALLY said. >So how do you propose to take away political power from Standard Oil, Mobil, >IBM, General Motors, Mitsubishi, etc? By working (peacefully or otherwise) to constitutionally limit the scope of government, approaching (altho admittedly not reaching) a point where political power is abolished altogether. > Do you suppose that the power to >put one's political viewpoint on the media [...] is *not* political power? Under a government like we've got, where government is permitted to expand if such expansion has popular support, such power certainly is political power. Constitutionally forbid such expansion, and the political power evaporates. Further, when the government, rather than the market, regulates the media (as in the case of electromagnetic broadcasts), informational power becomes concentrated (from a purely amoral point of view, the governing class made a dreadful error in allowing recent innovations in communications). > to determine what towns will >get jobs, and which will not, is *not* political power? When such ability can buy political favors, this too certainly is political power. Constitutionally forbid such purchases, and the political power evaporates. Further, when transportational and informational systems are highly developed, and when government does not impede relocation of individuals and business, the power "to determine what towns will get jobs" evaporates. >Is there anyway to disperse political power without dispersing economic power? YOU'RE talking about dispersing political power. I'm talking about ELIMINATING most of it. And, again, by austere constitutional limitation of government. >And how do you propose to redistribute economic power from the 10% of >the population that controls the vast majority of the nation's wealth? >By saying they can do anything they wish with their wealth? >I fail to see how this will lead to anything but *more* concentration of >wealth and power in the hands of a few. Such concentrations of economic power were brought about by excercising Such concentrations of economic power were brought about by exercising political power; they could not have been achieved thru the market. Such concntrations of economic power are maintained by exercising political power; they could not persist in a Free Economy. Why? Because of diseconomies of scale -- especially informational diseconomies. When you learn enough about the Price System, I'll explain; but as I said previously, I'm not going to spend my time teaching you economics. >Throughout history there has been an intimate bond between economic and >political power. True enough. Libertarians want to break that link; you just want to disperse power. And you seem altogether to have missed the fact that the causal flow most frequently goes from political to economic power. For example, feudal barons achieved economic power thru political power. >Just as the barons, lords, and kings claimed ownership over the primary means >of production, the land, and then extracted the peasant's production for their >own use, so the capitalists control the modern industrial means of production >and extract the worker's production for their own profit. Did you honestly think that I'd let you pull off that piece of sophistry? First of all, justice is NOT path-independent. Where industrialists stole the means of production (as the barons did), Libertarians regard such arraingments as abominable; but when such arraingments come about thru homesteading, production, and trade, they are legitimate. Secondly, what's this tommy-rot about 'extract the worker's production for their own profit'? Such notions were completely refuted by Eugen Ritter von Bohm Bawerk in *Capital and Interest* (Honestly, Sevener, we're not talking obscurantism here; Bohm Bawerk is discussed in virtually any comprehensive history of economic theory!). To find Bohm Bawerk in the library, look under 'Bohm Bawerk', 'Bohm-Bawerk', 'von Bohm Bawerk', 'von Bohm-Bawerk', 'Bohm von Bawerk', and any other combination of alphanumerics which comes to mind (American librarians are crazy). And, in case anybody out there has ideas of quoting the Astro-Marxists (probably nobody does): I'm ready. > A factory worker >can no sooner go to work without a factory to work in, than a peasant could >work without land to till. Unless a person possess capital then they must >work for somebody who *does* posses capital. The percentage of people >working for wages has steadily increased over this century. I would suggest >you read C. Wright Mills "White Collar" if you wish substantiation of this >fact. (not a theory, but fact). What is your advice to the vast majority >of people who make their money by earning wages? Can they really be free >so long as they must follow somebody else's dictates for wages? Ah, Sevener, another fast one, eh? Marx's predictions notwithstanding, participants haven't neatly divided into the proletariat and bourgeoisie. The overwhelming majority of wage-earners also possess capital. In fact, there was a book by Peter Drucker (I think it was called *The Unseen Revolution*, but I'm not sure) pointing out that the stock-market is increasingly dominated by worker-controlled pension-funds. Show me a wage-earner with no capital, and I'll show you a vanishing breed. Further, you are again pretending that we live in a Free Economy. As for my advice to a wage-earner: IF s/he's not happy, I recommend that s/he acquire new skills. When I've been a wage-earner, my co-workers tended to divide into two groups: those that were content, and those that were saving-up to pay for training or education. >At least Marx studied history enough to see the intimate connection between >economic and political power. Sevener, I'm not simply an economist; my specialty is cliometrics. > That the solutions applied in his name have >resulted in another form of economic and political power is unfortunate. Golly gosh, what a sad coincidence! Always seems to follow Leftist reform; guess that you guys are just plain unlucky. >But I fail to see that Libertarianism even addresses the fundamental >problems of power and influence in the real world as we know it. >Monopoly and oligopoly power is a fact. Moreover as I have already stated >the control of the economy by the top 500 corporations is increasing. >This is an economic fact. True enough, and it's because we live in a Fascist economy. To suggest that Capitalism won't work because we live in a Fascist world, is like suggesting that penicillin won't work because the patient has VD. > It has nothing to do with the polite theories >of some economists who would rather dwell in a "ceteris paribus" fantasy. Oh now, Tim, another straw man? An such a pathetic one at that. Ceteris paribus methodology, under one name or another, is used by all scientists -- not as a statement of how the real world is or ought to be, but as means of isolating the effect of each element in the system being analyzed. Further, events in the real world have EVERYTHING to do with the truths thus arrived at. That's why atomic bombs blow up and why monetization of the debt boosts the price level. >What is your proposed solution to this fact? Does it not pose a problem >if trends continue to the point that only a few corporations run virtually >the whole economy? What does this do to free market assumptions? Has anybody out there got a rough idea how many times that it's been pointed out to Sevener that we don't live in a Free Economy? Seems like dozens. It's as if I were to say that Porsches aren't any good because my Honda won't start! Up to my neck in disgust, Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan