trc@houti.UUCP (06/10/83)
Response to tbray's note on laissez faire capitalism: Whether or not a government *can* run a business efficiently is really only part of the issue. The real difficulty lies in the fact that governments (try to) have a monopoly on the use of force in their country. While this can be reasonable (providing a system of justice, police, and defense), it does make a government business either a very nasty competitor or, as it usually is, a coercive monopolist. A coercive monopoly is one that is sustained by force, not by inherent ability. It doesnt have to be efficient to survive. You believe government owned businesses are justified when private businesses would not provide equal service at equal cost to all. For the reasons stated above, I would say it is not justified. It seems likely to me that postal rates, for example, would be much cheaper for local letters, while long distance letters would not cost too much more. At worst, it would probably average out to the same price as now. Since I get a lot of long distance junk mail, I suspect that it would be lower for individuals, and higher for direct mail sales businesses. In short, those that get the most value from the system pay the most for it. Does the fact that every democratic government (and non-democratic one, by the way) regulates the private sector automatically make that right? Or does it really point out one of the failings of a democracy - that it is open to the politics of pressure groups and lobbyists? (I would prefer a republic - a government of laws and justice rather than one of men and politics.) Laissez faire capitalism is equivalent to piracy? Capitalism is the exact opposite of piracy. The pirate takes what others have created, by force. The capitalist can create without coercing anyone. You also seem to confuse the cause and the effect when you state that capitalism has only had its successes in circumstances of rapid economic expansion. What do you suppose caused the rapid expansion? What makes you think capitalism could not work in a finite environment? The human mind, not natural resources, is the source of all progress. Light bulbs and automobiles do not form themselves. And as to our finite environment - we humans have only just skimmed part of the surface of the land areas of the earth. In case you hadn't noticed, vast new frontiers are opening up - space, and the depths of the Earth and its oceans. I dont think it is quite yet time for humanity to crawl into a hole and give up on progress. Tom Craver houti!trc
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (06/11/83)
You say you would prefer a government of "laws and justice", rather than
"men and politics". Who makes the laws and who administers justice? Women
and men. I don't think it's possible to have a system where a fixed set
of perfect laws were inscribed in stone, and perfectly impartial judges
enforced and interpreted them (note the word "interpreted" - the only kind
of law that needs no interpretation is one that describes every possible
case); even were that possible, changing situations require changing laws.
And when you have men and women making laws, you will have politics.
And as for our finite environment - no, don't give up on progress, but don't
organize society to assume that there will always be enough for everyone,
either. After all, many resource scarcity problems are dealt with by
substitution of other resources, but there may not be a good replacement
or there may be other consequences of the substitution.
Guy Harris
RLG Corporation
{seismo,mcnc,we13,brl-bmd,allegra}!rlgvax!guy