tbray@mprvaxa.UUCP (Tim Bray) (09/20/84)
One point the libertarians and right-wingers are missing in this debate
is the fact that the welfare state serves them, as well as "those who
don't work".
In fact, in the absence of the welfare state safety net and some
reasonably well-muscled government regulatory practices, history has
shown two extremely predictable trends:
1. Those in economic power rapidly increase their degree of exploitation
of their fellow humans and of their environment: the classic example
is the "dark satanic mills" of Industrial Revolution Europe, filled
with child labourers, surrounded by filthy slums inhabited by the
oppressed.
2. The above gives rise to powerful revolutionary forces. In countries
with a democratic tradition, this usually leads to the rise of the
above-mentioned regulatory welfare state. In countries with no
democratic tradition, this usually leads to violent revolution,
usually followed by a continuation of the non-democratic traditions.
Conclusions: First, the modern state exists not merely to service the
nonproductive, but also to prevent your well-heeled entrails from
being fished out by a revolutionary with a pitchfork (romantic I know,
but colourful, what?). Second, some measure of morality must be
enforced by the state, because at no time in history have capitalists
in power shown any tendancy to exercise it voluntarily.
Laissez-faire == Child Labour
Tim Bray {ihnp4!alberta, decvax!microsoft} !ubc-vision!mprvaxa!tbraybrad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (09/21/84)
You play rich people off as stupid, which, if they made their own wealth, is the opposite to the truth. You think you can realize that there is long term value in things like education, sanitation, health care, and other things that discourage slums? They can too, you know. They don't need you to show them the one true way, thanks. They especially don't need you to force them along the one true path at gunpoint, as you do today. Have you ever wondered what would happen if the government didn't take half the nations GNP and use it with very low efficiency? If they left it in the hands of peope who are PROVEN experts at production. It looks very likely that the gnp that actually gets to each person would increase. Even if the rich took a bigger share, that share could get very big before they started taking money away from the poor, couldn't it? The point is that in a free society, I would contribute to certain welfare programs. Of my own free will, thanks. So would many others. Most of the problems you suggest are, as usual, solved by my Netonomics EFT money system. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/23/84)
Let us not forget that the "regulatory welfare state" has, in many cases,
strayed a long way from its original goals of controlling the excesses of
the nasty old capitalists. To an increasing extent, the state is really
looking after the interests of the same nasty old capitalists.
It is not hard to understand why this happens. A regulatory agency can
be a pain in the neck, but it can also be a dandy way of crushing would-be
competitors and enforcing mediocrity on an industry. You don't have to
do a better job than the new startup company, or develop a response to
the latest innovation that's going to radically change the business --
you just get the regulators to outlaw them. There is no shortage of
industries that have stagnated under regulation for just this reason.
Given that the regulatory agency has such power over the industry, and
can be such a useful tool for enshrining lazy companies in their
dominance, one of the best investments a regulated industry can make is to
gain control of the regulatory agency. There are various ways of doing
this. The result is often partial rather than total control, but that
is usually enough. It doesn't matter if the agency makes a nuisance of
itself from time to time, provided that it doesn't rock the boat too
badly.
The end result of this process is exactly the opposite of the usual
original intent. Instead of protecting the victims of the big nasty
capitalists, the government is aiding and abetting the very practices
that it is supposed to suppress.
In short, the whole thing is another example of a basic principle: if
you give a government power over something, that power will be used --
and not necessarily in the way you intended. If freedom is to be
maximized, the power of government must be held to a minimum, whatever
that is. Giving the government power over some area "because there are
problems that must be fixed" is generally a poor idea: there is no
guarantee that the government will fix them, and it will retain the
power long after the original problems are gone. It is better to
look for the minimum legal change that will push things in the right
direction, rather than giving the government total control and hoping
that they'll do the right thing.
Note that I said "held to a minimum", not "eliminated". There are areas,
such as the cases Tim Bray mentioned (pollution, and exploitation of
those unable to protect their own interests [children]), where I see no
viable alternative to some degree of government intervention. But this
is a regrettable and somewhat dangerous necessity, not a wonderful and
beautiful thing.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry