lvc@cbscc.UUCP (Larry Cipriani) (01/03/85)
In reference to an article no longer on my machine (about ologopolies
and Tim Sevener pretending to be an economist which Larry Kolodney
responded to) -- from my economist friend again:
Larry Kolodney has produced a rather remarkable non-sequitur. Distill his
argument, and it reads: The system fails, which proves that we need the system.
Kolodney begins with "The question is not 'What method is used to wield
power?' but 'Who wields power?'". He should examine what is meant by the word
"power", so that he won't use it equivocally. If he means ALL forms of power,
he's dead wrong. If, for example, Smith can produce a well reasoned argument,
he possesses the power to affect my actions; if, instead, he threatens me with
a 44 Magnum, he still possesses the power to affect my actions; but the two
situations have different ethical status. The METHOD is important.
Kolodney says: "Whenever there is a lack of strong govt. with strong
popular control, powerful third parties inevitably gain control of the govt."
He states this "inevitability" without substantiation, and doesn't clarify
what he means by "strong popular control". If he means, by "strong popular
control", a system like we now have in place, then he has somehow forgotten the
point that was made in the paragraph that he was responding to: Our goverment
serves the interests of an elite. In fact, the history of our government,
especially in the post-Civil-War era, can be characterized in terms of the
arisal, growth, and strengthening a ruling class which uses a combination of
of demogoguery and back-room manipulation to wield power.
More generally speaking: Whenever goverment is powerful--or has the
potential to become powerful--various classes will seek to take control and
exploit the power of said goverment; eventually one of these classes will
succeed.
Kolodney says: "Power inevitably accumulates." Like the first
"inevitability", this too is stated without substantiation. And here, again,
Kolodney needs to clarify what he means by "power". If he's talking about
political power, he may generally be right; let's assume that he's absolutely
right. This doesn't get us to his conclusion that "The only counter force to
strong third parties controlling your life is for a strong govt. to do so,
where at least you have SOME say in how it does so, and how it doesn't.".
Powerful elites control my life VIA a strong government. I almost NEVER have
ANY say in how it does so, because those coalitions of voters which are against
me almost ALWAYS successfully form pluralities. If we reduced the size and
strength of government, AT LEAST it would take some time for a new ruling class
to arise; if, in the meantime, the proper philosophical foundations were
developed and established, we might see an end to ruling classes.
Larry Cipriani
cbscc!cbsch!lvc