[net.politics.theory] Orphaned Response

nrh@inmet.UUCP (03/16/85)

>***** inmet:net.politics.t / whuxl!orb /  9:02 pm  Mar 12, 1985
>>  <mike claims:
>> The US makes a good working example of this: it started as a relatively
>> libertarian state, grew strong and etc., and slid (is sliding) into a
>> totalitarian-socialism [and before the flames start, no, I do *not* think
>> those two are inevitebly coupled].
>> 
> 
>Once again we hear repeated the old rightwing myth that the United States
>began with a cabal of "Libertarians" and diehard advocates of "free 
>enterprise".  
....
>It is simply dead wrong for Libertarians to try to claim that the
>originators of our democracy were "Libertarians".
>Please stop making this claim!
>          tim  sevener   whuxl!orb
>----------

Well, netters -- judge for yourselves -- Did the original article
say "relatively libertarian"?  Did Sevener imply that the claim
was that the founders were "Libertarians" (note the capital-L)?

Chalk up another straw man -- C'mon, Tim, please argue cases
on their merits, not the merits you care to inject into a straw man!
It seems to me to weaken your point, not strengthen it.

By the way, thanks for the REST of the article.  Bear in mind, though
that some libertarians don't mind the government doing things (really!)
so long as it does them without exercising privileges which other
entities (people, organizations) don't have (such as taxation).
In particular, it seems to me that the use of new, government-owned
land to finance education is consistent with some libertarian positions, but
not others. (What??? Libertarians don't all AGREE??!!?  But, surely
the socialists all agree :-))

nrh@inmet.UUCP (06/16/85)

>/**** inmet:net.politics.t / whuxl!orb /  9:32 am  Jun 10, 1985 ****/
> 
>There is also often more *freedom* under public ownership.  For example:
>shopping malls, since they are privately owned, have taken it as their
>right to deny the public the right of free speech and assembly in such
>malls.  Those advocating viewpoints which the mall's management disagrees
>with have been kicked out - "we own the mall, we can kick anybody out
>we choose, free speech or not".  On public streets there are no such
>restrictions - since they are public, the rights of free speech and
>assembly must be respected whether public officials like it or not.
>Personally I am *very* glad there are still many such places left, as well
>as public parks, public libraries, and public monuments and museums.

I notice you say "often more freedom" instead of "more often more freedom".
Perhaps the reason is the rather small degree of freedom that 
socialist-oriented societies allow dissenters?  Moscow may be 
"publicly" owned, but somehow one finds little freedom there.

As for the owners of malls, they exert no control over those
who hire halls and meet in private homes.   Governments, on the
other hand, make it illegal to joke about hijacking in airports.
At one point, it was illegal in France (under penalty of death!) to 
ask whether you were going to be paid in silver or in paper money.
Face it -- the government only protects freedom of speech when it 
can't get away with suppressing it.

Public ownership a safeguard for freedom?  No way.

By the way, your notion that the public has a right to free
assembly on private property deserves a little re-consideration: 
Mind if I hold a rock concert in your bedroom?  Surely, after all,
you support the "right of free assembly".....

nrh@inmet.UUCP (07/02/85)

>/**** inmet:net.politics.t / whuxl!orb /  5:41 pm  Jun 24, 1985 ****/
>> I'd recommend this book to everyone, but RAH espouses things so far out of
>> fashion that the left compares him to the Nazis. Just imagine, thinking that
>> personal responsibility and meeting your commitments are good ideas. Not to
>> mention attacking the church, slavery, and espousing freedom in general
>> 	<mike
>> 
> 
>As I recall it was revolutionaries like Thomas Jefferson and the founders
>of this country via Revolution who first advocated freedom of religion and
>promotion of free ideas.
>It is right-wing Moral Majority followers who are advocating a return to
>religion stuffed down people's throats and book-burning.
> 
>As I recall it was those "bleeding heart" "leftist" abolitionists who
>advocated the abolition of slavery.  The right-wing was content to
>hold onto its private slave property.
> 
>As I recall it was the right-wing Joseph McCarthy who ruined the careers
>of thousands because their political beliefs differed from his.
> 

You surely aren't trying to call libertarians right-wing, are you?
Or to imply that Thomas Jefferson was "left-wing"?

Right wingers tend to get very uncomfortable when we talk about 
removing most or all foreign US bases, and when we suggest legalizing
heroin (although Wm. F. Buckley is beginning to be convinced) and
when some (not all) libertarians come out against abortion laws.

>As we have just seen "Libert"arians like Mike Sykora have no qualms about
>abolishing freedom of speech in favor of private property.

Excuse me, but I'll bet you do this too.  Sykora argues that shopping
mall owners should be able determine what political purposes their malls
are used for.  You seem to feel (with no better justification, or a 
justification just as good) that you have the right to do this for
your bedroom.

> 
>Who really espouses "freedom"?

Not a bad question.  Certainly not the socialists (for example) or the
fascists, (for another).  If "the truth shall set you free" then those
who distort the truth tend to be foes of freedom.  In particular, 
I don't recall Sykora arguing that anyone should "abolish freedom of
speech in favor of private property", merely that freedom of speech
doesn't carry with it the right to speak and assemble on other people's
private property.  

I suppose it is too late to hope for this, but I wish you'd stop
misstating other people's positions -- it only weakens your own
rhetoric when the misstatement is set right.

> 
>                tim sevener whuxl!orb
>/* ---------- */
>

nrh@inmet.UUCP (07/06/85)

>/**** inmet:net.politics.t / whuxl!orb /  8:49 am  Jul  1, 1985 ****/
>> 
>> Excuse me, but challenging you to find a person who can know your wants
>> better than you do consistently seems to me to be a perfectly valid
>> question to ask of those who claim that governments should have the power
>> to force their decisions on you for your own good.  For any choice
>> you face with respect to your own interests, another person may
>> 
>> 	A) Feel you are qualified to make the choice better than he is.
>> 
>> 	B) Feel that he knows better than you what the choice you should
>> 	make is (and be right).
>> 
>> 	C) Feel that he knows better than you what the choice you should
>> 	make is (and be WRONG).
> 
>Again, I should like to point out that I don't think government has any
>business intruding in my private decisions which affect primarily only
>*my* self-interest such as the decision to smoke or not to smoke tobacco,
>the decision to smoke or not to smoke marijuana, the decision to engage
>in whatever sexual activity I may prefer (so long as it involves no
>physical harm to another)
> 
>On the other hand, my right to commit suicide by smoking tobacco does not
>include my right to kill others with my tobacco smoke and the same for
>marijuana smoke.
> 
>Libertarians have talked a lot about "straw-men" - I think it is a blatant
>strawman to insist that democratic socialists on this net support the
>suppression of individual liberties which involve solely the individual.

I trust everyone will forgive me for quoting Sevener's entire article
up to this point, but I wished to avoid any possibility of quoting out of
context.

Mr. Sevener -- who has claimed this?  Can you give quotes in context?

Also, what of the right of people to commit suicide by smoking
tobacco in a society where there is socialized medicine?  In that
case does the government have the right to restrain the smoker
in order to save money?  It seems to me that a similar point arose
over the seat belt issue regarding the right of the government to 
regulate seat-belt use in order to limit its trouble in cleaning
up after accidents.

In short, what significant, self-affecting actions may a person take
affecting "primarily only" himself/herself?  What if habitual drug
use is thought to lower labor efficiency?  May farmers take drugs
(in a socialist system) under such conditions?  Even if there's
famine?

In socialist societies (NOT the same as what has been presented
by "democratic socialists on this net") the government habitually
controls every facet of people's economic lives, and a great deal 
of behavior that is not directly economic (such as regulating
political demonstrations).  

> 
>On the other hand I also think I have the right as the citizen of a 
>democracy to join with other citizens to enact laws which benefit all of us.

Sort of a slippery statement there: if you refer to laws which are only
enforced on those who agree freely (perhaps indirectly) that those laws should
be binding, you are correct.  If you mean that you and a bunch of 
legislators may get together and arbitrarily enact laws without the consent
of the governed, you are incorrect.

>Stopping at red lights is not a question of simply my own interest but
>in every motorists interests.  For government to enforce such a law
>benefits all motorists.

GIVEN that the government owns the roads, it is reasonable to expect it
to regulate the use of the roads.  However this "law" need not be a creature
of government but a matter of implicit contract among those using the
road and the owners of the road.

> 
>Speaking of civil liberties: what do Libertarians think about the New Jersey
>law to force high school students to take drug tests?

This is the first I've heard of it.  Sounds like it bites the wad to me.

nrh@inmet.UUCP (07/06/85)

>/**** inmet:net.politics.t / whuxl!orb / 11:55 am  Jul  1, 1985 ****/
>> From Clayton Cramer: 
>> Government, because it is a monopoly, doesn't have the competitive
>> pressures to improve service if it screws up; a private company that
>> screws up loses its market share, and the stockholders or the proprietor
>> will take steps to solve the problem by removing managers that don't
>> do their jobs.  The government doesn't have bad intentions in this area ---
>> it just can't figure out that it has problems because it can't lose
>> market share.
>
>As I have pointed out before, I will point out again that in a
>multiparty democratic system there certainly *are* checks on the
>governmental monopoly: namely elections.
>Moreover there are officials who will help provide government services:
>namely Congresspersons.  Congresspersons are particularly anxious
>to help cut bureaucratic red tape to help their constituents because
>they know this wins votes.  Some Congresspeople maintain their office
>almost solely on the basis of constituent service for good and ill.

Remarkable.  This paragraph seems to coexist with a later paragraph
arguing that the *political* reaction to overspending was inappropriate.

> 
>When people feel that the goverment's inefficiency is simply costing too
>much then they will vote for politicians who promise to cut out the
>inefficiencies.  This is partly what happened with the Proposition 13
>Movement and the later election of Ronald Reagan.
>
>In fact, I personally agree that there is enormous inefficiency in 
>social spending and the welfare system. I believe many of the functions
>of the welfare system could be better served by replacing it with
>a negative income tax. Unfortunately I do not see Reagan's meatax
>approach to social spending as truly promoting efficiency in social
>spending.

Why not?  It was about as "democratic" an election as has ever been held.

>Nor do I think that solely private efforts would reduce poverty and
>hunger.  The fact is that before the Great Society programs millions
>of Americans went hungry.  Now very few people go hungry.

Support please, for the idea that the Great Society was responsible
for the ending of all this hunger.

> 
>On the other hand what check is there on a Standard oil which controls
>%100 of the oil market?

It would seem that there is no check on you bringing this up no
matter how many times it is pointed out to you that S.O. was NOT
a monopoly, that Cornplanter Refineries was steadily gaining ground
on them, and that plenty of anti-monopoly, anti-cartel,  forces exist in the
free market (or do you think OPEC is having a meeting soon to congratulate
themselves on how well they've managed to control 100% of their market?)

>  
>        tim sevener  whuxl!orb
>/* ---------- */
>
						- Nat Howard

nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/01/85)

>/* Written 10:28 am  Aug 19, 1985 by pedsgd!bob in inmet:net.politics.t */
>Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <28200051@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes:
>>
>>
>>If you want a lot of evidence for this, I suggest you read Charles
>>Murray's "Losing Ground".  In brief, the welfare state has harmed those
>
>I must get a copy of this book I guess. As refutation, Teddy White in
>"The Making of the President 1972" claims that the average income for
>blacks rose dramtically under the Great Society. I can ferret out the
>exact numbers if you want. Apparently they came from the 1970 census,
>but its hard to tell. On the down side, the number of broken homes
>also rose dramatically.

I'd be very interested in precisely what is claimed.  Take a look at
page 62 of Murray's book -- a graph there shows a steep plunge in
poverty for "blacks & others" (non-whites) from 1960-1970, and then
an erratic hovering around 30% from 1970-1980. 

>
>>The abolition of coercion need not make people more generous -- to 
>>spend $1 on a poor person, the Federal government must take in
>>$5.  A private agency need take in only about $1.10.  Remember, we're
>
>Just curious, but what is the source for this?

These figures and others were published on the net some time ago. (Sorry,
I've forgotten who posted them -- whoever did, please re-post with
references).
I'm pretty sure the private charity one is roughly correct (it was $1.13 for
United Way in Cleveland when I did a story on them for an in-house newspaper),
and it isn't obviously out of line for a government that must investigate
the people it's paying to, tax the people it's grabbing from, and spend on
the people who are doing all the paying and grabbing.

nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/01/85)

>/* Written  5:50 pm  Aug 17, 1985 by ubvax!tonyw in inmet:net.politics.t */
>In article <28200048@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes
>>>Hence it makes
>>>filling a job a manageable task for most jobs, by helping to ensure
>>>that the number of "qualified" applicants for a job match the number
>>>of jobs more or less.  
>>>It also makes filling a job a less risky
>>>procedure, since applicants have accumulated a record which can
>>>be compared with other records even before the first job.
>>
>>A peculiar stance, given that the colleges and private high
>>schools depend on private achievement tests.....
>>
>
>Again here, private achievement tests have nothing to do with jobs.  They
>react to the failure of high school or elementary schools to generate
>decent credentials -- a failure of the American system of local rule
>over high school and elementary education which systems following
>national educational standards don't share.

In other words, if the state provides such a service, the market need
not.  This is news?  There's nothing here to suggest that the "national
educational standards" are better than standardized tests, and if you
want diversity in your educational system, I would think that the
standardized test route (public or private) would be the way to go.


>The solution here is stricter national standards, not looser ones.
>And personnel departments don't look at ETS results, anyway.

They don't have to -- the people with poor ETS scores had less of 
a chance to attain the credentials that the personnel departments
DO look at, and the ETS info would be old anyhow.  On the other hand,
perhaps you have heard of the "Institute for the Certification of
Computer Professionals"?

>>>Of course, the value of a credentialing system depends on the level
>>>of publicity, the level of enforcement, and the level of agreement
>>>on the value of particular credentials.  Hence, since the best
>>>guarantor of publicity, enforcement, and agreement between credentials
>>>is a public regulatory authority, 
>>
>>Support please.
>>
>
>I assume you agree with the first sentence.  As far as the second goes,
>I think of a credentialing scheme like a security setup.  The most
>secure setups are where an outside, central agency takes charge of
>security and makes sure that all sub-central security arrangements
>are consistent, so that the system as a whole is secure against hostile
>entry.  And where everyone knows the rules.  The same rules which
>maintain secure environments are the rules which maintain consistent
>credentialing systems.
>

No support here for the notion that the state must administer such
a system -- the "outside, central agency" need not be public at
all (ETS isn't).   Indeed, public agencies have the problem of being
under government pressure to pump the scores up.  Private agencies
are presumably a little more resistant.

>The only central agency in a state which has coercive powers over
>people within the state is the state.  

AHA! Here's the core of what I believe to be your error.  There is
no need for such an agency to be coercive.  None.

>So it has a role if a social
>goal is that educational credentials should be secure and consistent.

Why?  If I tell you that my name is "Nat Howard" and can get you to
agree with me that much, and then we make a joint call to a private
credentialing service that you trust, you will be convinced that I
have a given credential if they say I do.

Of course, you may elect not to trust the private agency, feeling that
a public one would be more trustworthy.  If so, you've fallen into the
bad mistake of believing that public officials are less corrupt
than private ones.

>>>on the value of particular credentials.  Hence, since the best
>>>guarantor of publicity, enforcement, and agreement between credentials
>>>is a public regulatory authority, 
>>>and because people outside the
>>>educational system disturb the system of credentials, 
>>
>>Support for the implication that the impact that outsiders have
>>is "distortion" and not "adjustment to reality", please.
>>
>
>The debate over affirmative action.  Anyone who gets benefited by
>affirmative action is assumed to be distorting the system because
>they didn't obtain the necessary credentials, or their credentials
>were watered down and inflated compared to similar credentials held
>by others.  These people are outsiders because they break the rules
>relating credentials to jobs.  Now, if you believe that affirmative
>action is adjustment to reality, then I have no argument with you.
>

By "outsiders", I meant the people outside the testing system who
exert pressure to modify testing criteria.  Not the beneficiaries
of such modification.  Indeed, making a government agency be the
arbiter of such things means that testing criteria MUST be influenced
by politics.  A private agency faces ruin if it's credentials are
shown to be fraudulent.  Not so a government agency.  A private agency
also faces ruin if its credentials are shown to be unattached to 
reality.  This is also not so true of a federal agency.  In short,
the forces that act on a private agency tend to make the credentials
reflect reality more closely.  The pressures on a public agency reflect
the degree of power and interest held by pressure groups, some of whom
would benefit from certain changes.

Nice try, by the way, with affirmative action, but we're discussing
credentialing agencies, not criteria that are supposed to be
important for choosing among people of equal credentials.  Or do
I misunderstand AA?  Or am I missing your point?

>>>the place
>>>for education is in the public sphere, and education should be
>>>subsidized and regulated by a public authority.
>>
>>Given a false premise, it's possible to prove anything.  Please back 
>>yours up.
>
>I'm guessing here as to what you think is the false premise.  Maybe
>you could tell me in some reply or future article.

The false premise is that coercion is needed to have a good credentialing
agency.  As near as I can tell that is your only reason for thinking the
government should run such an agency.

nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/02/85)

>/* Written  6:33 pm  Aug 17, 1985 by ubvax!tonyw in inmet:net.politics.t */
>/* ---------- "Re: Charity in Libertaria vs. a goo" ---------- */
>In article <28200051@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes:
>>
>>(Tony Wuersch)
>>>/* ---------- "Re: Newsflash! [Subsidized Educatio" ---------- */
>>>
>>>But is it true that the poor
>>>and down-and-out do better from private charity than from the modern
>>>welfare state?  Why should the abolition of "coercion" make people
>>>any more generous?  Why should the absence of any health standards,
>>>for instance, which poor people should fulfill (food in the right
>>>quantities, minimum shelter, etc.) aid the poor in meeting these
>>>standards?
>>
>>If you want a lot of evidence for this, I suggest you read Charles
>>Murray's "Losing Ground".  In brief, the welfare state has harmed those
>>it wished to help, and so far (a social-worker friend tells me) the best
>>that any liberal publication has been able to do is grumble that maybe
>>things would have been even worse if the welfare state hadn't been around.
>>A pretty weak argument from those who have stolen billions of dollars
>>ostensibly to help.
>
>I'm glad you say "evidence" and not "good evidence".  The best the New
>Republic did (and it's not entirely a liberal publication) was to smash
>the data used in "Losing Ground" to pieces.  Its data was selective at its
>worst -- the worst cities in the worst years, and the worst groups.

Excuse me, but I haven't read the article.  I'm surprised, though -- surely
the policies in question are worth testing at their worst?  Not to do so
is like saying that a ship's hull is "on average" watertight.  I am
curious, though, just which data were called "selective", and whether the
selections were deceptive (as you seem to imply by saying "selective at its
worst").  By the way, who's contention is it that the data used were 
"smashed to pieces"?  If it's yours, and you've the same knowledge of
data that you seem to display with regard to kidney problems, below,
then I invite you to apologize for voicing any opinion.

>>The abolition of coercion need not make people more generous -- to 
>>spend $1 on a poor person, the Federal government must take in
>>$5.  A private agency need take in only about $1.10.  Remember, we're
>>talking about a society in which anybody could take people on 
>>taxi rides, cut their hair, or do social work without certification
>>from the state or fear that the state might shut them down without
>>certification from a union, so some proportion of the poor who don't
>>have jobs now would have jobs in libertaria.
>
>A private agency need take in only about $1.10 because it has no
>obligation to help everybody.  It only has to help people who make it
>easy to be helped.  

I can just see next year's United Way campaign slogan -- "We do the EASY
ones!"  I invite examples of charities that help only those who make it
easy.

Of course, some people do not WANT to be helped -- the government may
come along and imprison them for life regardless of what they want, for
their own good.  What to do about people who do not desire treatment is
an interesting question, of course, well worth separate consideration,
but very briefly, I oppose coercion of anyone not initiating force or
fraud, and forced psychiatric treatment of anybody.  Short of that, what
private charities have refused to help reluctant or nasty people?

Of COURSE the government gets certain hard problems, just as the USPS
probably gets most of the mail destined for Rural Free Delivery areas.  Why?
Because the government subsidizes RFD.  To argue that there'd be no 
charity for the "hard-to-help" in Libertaria is like arguing that there'd
be no mail for those living in the countryside.  It's nonsense.  
If the government didn't do it, those concerned with the problem would.
This would include the relatives of the schizophrenics, the manic-depressives,
those affected by literature on the subject, those victimized directly or
indirectly, by the illness who have recovered, and those who, like 
yourself, I'm sure, are concerned with public welfare in general.

>People who make it hard to be helped get dumped
>on the government.  In Libertaria, people who make it hard to be
>helped, schizophrenics being the most notable case (and there are
>MILLIONS of them around, some of whom I know), still would be turned
>away by private agencies.  

Oh lovely!  I can just see "Sixty Minutes (Libertaria Edition)" 
doing a story on that.  End of funding for that bunch of hard-nosed
nasties, right?  Who would give to the folks that turned away
people they said they'd help?  On the other hand, if a government
bureau does the same thing, does its funding get cut?  Well.... no.

>Remember, the criteria for success for
>private agencies tends to be the number of bodies they end up helping.
>Any body that makes life hard on them would reduce the "success" rate.

Nobody would expect the "Rich Rosen Halfway House For the Violently
Flaming" to have the same "success" rate as the "Professor Moriarty 
Clinic for Those With Mild Indigestion From the Net".  Yet both causes
would attract funding.  What's that?  Not the sort of funding you desire?
Why bless you, Fella, that's the POINT of Libertaria!  Richard Carnes
doesn't get to choose how much money would be donated.  Nat Howard doesn't
get to choose it.  JoSH doesn't get to choose it.  The people who GIVE
get to choose it.  Right now, those people do NOT have a choice regarding
(say) welfare.  People who would put such things in the hands of the state
deny it to them.  

Is it a shame that AIDS funding is too low?  Give them a few bucks.  Is
it too bad that the Society for Debating Unsettle-able Things gets so
much?  Specify on your United Way card that you don't want any of your
money sent there.  Right now, the SDUT people have the assistance of
people who can attach your paycheck to get funding.  

>>Of course, if you REALLY think that people a libertarian society would
>>be less generous, you should bear in mind that you are saying that
>>people tend to give less than a fifth voluntarily than they do under
>>coercion, and that the poor have not been denied reasonable jobs
>>by such things as minimum wage laws and licensure.  Not a tenable
>>position.  You're also assuming that a large number of people will
>>need charity -- remember Daniel Mck.'s very well-defended discussion
>>of unemployment in libertaria.
>
>Again, there are millions of schizophrenics who don't have to live in
>institutions.  I don't remember Daniel's discussion.  And I really
>think people in a libertarian society would be as generous as other
>people with similar after-tax incomes today.  That sounds reasonable
>to me.  And I don't think most people I know are very generous.

Go just a step further.  Supply AND demand, remember?  In our society,
the Supply of money is limited by taxation.  Demand for private funding
is ALSO limited -- the government is assumed to be "doing something"
(and it is, mostly inefficiently) and is put in charge of anything
regarded as a public health emergency.  In a libertarian society,
the SUPPLY of money is greater (your after-tax income is raised to 
match your pre-tax income) and the DEMAND for those funds from 
private charities is larger.  Why?  Because the private charities have
not been subsidized.  They have stronger cases that the funds are
needed, and needed locally.  They also can do their part more efficiently.

>>The reason that the absence of health standards would help the poor to
>>meet those the real standards of health is that the existence of a
>>standard in law merely imposes a penalty for not meeting the standard
>>("we arrest you because these houses you built are too small, or because
>>the food you provide is too meager") but doesn't accomplish any increase
>>in the amount of housing or food provided.  In other words, making it
>>illegal to serve inferior food doesn't make it a requirement to serve
>>good food.
>
>Not true at the federal level.  Courts can look at the intent of
>legislation, and frequently do, to guarantee that compliance with the
>law does not mean violation of the intent of a law.  Also often not
>true at the state level.  Often true at the local level.

Not true at the federal level, eh?  That's not the experience of 
one lawyer who used to work for the Department of the Interior:
"But Popeo, the son of a working-class family, was offended by his cases
at Interior.  Handed the responsibility for enforcing health and safety
regulations often capricious and petty in nature, he found that his
opponents in court were often struggling entrepreneurs.  The last straw,
Popeo related in a recent interview, was when he found himself seeking a 
court injunction to 'close down a one-man mine operation because the
owner didn't have a two-way radio to talk to himself, or a stretcher to carry
himself out of the mine if injured.'". [Reason Magazine, Sept., 1985, pp 48].

>>An example?  Why sure!  Just take a look at the abandonment rate of 
>>buildings under rent control in New York city.  If you'd rather not
>>look it up, just take a cab through Harlem sometime.  Those buildings
>>with the metal sheets blocking the windows are examples.
>
>Local problem -- the problem with housing policy is that it's defined
>as a local problem, so people who want to cheat on a local law can
>just move out or transfer their investment assets.  Landlords should
>be forced to keep reserves for maintenance of buildings at all times
>as national policy, enforced by the FBI.  Otherwise their buildings
>go up for sale IMMEDIATELY.

How nice!  You would create an enormous federal agency to do this
(think about it for five minutes) and the result would be?  The landlords
would sell or not sell their buildings.  Rents would go up or not go up.
If they didn't go up (presumably because landlords were not allowed
to pass on increases in federal taxes and depreciation on the 
"reserves" (how would you reserve handymen, anyhow?) buildings would
be abandoned, and left to rot.  Remember -- nobody forces them to be
in the landlord business, and you, oh Gentle One, have just argued that
their assets should be seized at gunpoint if a bureaucrat in Washington
says so.  Of course, perhaps the increases could be passed on, forcing
many of those on marginal incomes out into the streets.  Nice going,
oh Arbiter of Real Estate.  Perhaps you should just come out and
advocate socialized housing, as they have in Moscow (which has
a terrific crunch in housing, by the way, and regulates people's
moving).

Thanks, but I wouldn't want the rest of Manhattan filled
with rotting buildings and condos because of the irrational fears
of the uninformed.

For example,  your argument that local enforcement makes it 
possible for landlords to transfer their assets elsewhere, this is 
a new low in feeble-mindedness.  Those buildings are ABANDONED (read my
lips)  the landlord has given up on them.  He has not sold them to 
anyone, nor gotten any "assets" out of them.  He has discovered that
(say) buying tax-free bonds offers him a better income than keeping
up a building that costs more to keep up than he collects in rent.


>>Another example?  Certainly.  Kidney machines are rationed and
>>subsidized by the government.  There has been relatively little research
>>on improving these machines because the whole thing is pretty closely
>>regulated, there have also been pretty severe limits placed on access to
>>those machines.  For details, see Reason Magazine, August 1984.
>
>Boy, you're in a mess on this one.  Government pays for kidney maintenance
>because most kidney disease sufferers can't afford dialysis.  So the
>government created the market for kidney machines in the first place,
>by making current technology affordable.
>

Tsk!  When you go to the doctor, how much of the bill do you pay?  
I generally pay $1, because I have health insurance.  Was the insurance
federally subsidized?  Nope, not as far as I can tell (modulo, of course,
the ever-present tax arguments by which it may be argued that anything
is subsidized).  My understanding is that I'm paying for things like
dialysis, should I need them, by pooling my risk of needing such things
with other people.  Need dialysis be expensive? 

	Dutch physician Willem Kolff, the inventor of the dialysis
	machine in the 1940s, told me he was shocked to learn of the
	high cost dialysis machinery being used on an experimental basis
	in the United States when he immigrated here in 1950.  Intent on
	altering this situation, Dr. Kolff continuously pushed to reduce
	costs.  By 1968 he had modified Maytag washing machines into
	dialysis machines at a fraction of the cost of machines then in
	use.  The same year, he sent 21 people home with machines and
	two months worth of supplies for a total cost of $360 per
	patient. [Reason Magazine, August 1984]
	
>The technology is there; would you have thousands die while private
>market analysts judge if investing in dialysis research is potentially
>profitable?  What if they decide that it isn't?  I for one am not sure
>it would be profitable on an unsubsidized basis.

As one might expect, you have no idea of what is really going on.  So
you think that the government has to step in to get research going?
Why not ask the fellow who invented the machine?

	Or consider how the system stifles equipment innovations.
	Kidney-machine inventor Dr. Kolff has now developed a portable
	dialysis machine that would enable patients to travel, work more
	easily, and generally lead more productive, normal lives.  But
	Kolff told me that he is unable to get any American
	manufacturers interested in making the machine.  

	The problem is uncertain demand.  Prototypes have been made for
	$6000 each -- the same cost as American machines used in
	dialysis centers when purchased in volume.  Although Kolff's
	machine could provide dialysis patients with more-satisfying
	lifestyles, neither nephrologists, equipment makers, nor
	facility operators have much incentive to introduce their
	patients to the machines, since it is not clear how they would
	fit in to ESRD reimbursement provisions.  So Kolff has gone to a
	Japanese manufacturer to supply him with prototypes.

And would thousands die?  One doesn't hear about it in the case of 
hemophiliacs:

	The effect of these portrayals [dramatic appeals to the US
	congress about kidney failure] should not be minimized.  There
	are, after all, other catastrophic disabilities that affect as
	many people and cost as much to treat as kidney failure but
	don't lure as much government money.  Richard Rettig, professor
	of social sciences at the Illinois Institute of Technology,
	notes that the taxpayers are not footing the bill, for example,
	to treat hemophiliacs, whose numbers exceed those with kidney
	failure.  The central symptom of hemophilia is serious bleeding,
	and Rettig figures that a quarter of all hemophiliacs "require
	continuous replacement of fresh whole blood, plasma, and
	clotting concentrates," a therapy at least as expensive as
	dialysis.

>
>And besides, government's not a bad market, either, if it operates a
>proper bidding process.  

That is a pretty big "if", O mighty evaluator of markets.  In the
particular case of ESRD aid, the government offers a fixed fee for dialysis,
regardless of what costs were.  The result?  It's very profitable indeed to 
run dialysis outfits, and new technology is not evaluated properly because of
the uncertainty of how the government will treat it. 

In fact, I've answered this last statement of yours as if you'd said
"the government doesn't do too badly at the market, either, if it operates
a proper bidding process."  To answer what you actually wrote (which 
I believe to be a mis-phrasing) the government is an AWFUL market -- one
of the reasons why it's hard find anyone who still believes in the government
setting all prices.  The problem is that a government doesn't have available
the information to set prices correctly, which results in 
incorrect prices, which results in misproduction.
Very socialist economies tend to set their prices to reflect politics, not
engineering reality, which is one reason why they have to make it illegal
(for example) to feed bread to cattle (the price of bread is lower than
that of the corresponding amount of grain).

>Then the lowest price competitors get to sell
>to government, and if there's competition, prices will go down.

This would be true enough, but what has happened in this case is that
the government offers a fixed price, so there is no pressure to 
charge the government less, so prices stay just where they are.
This ties in nicely with the recent discussion in net.politics of the
increasingly more complex specifications for airplanes -- the government
has indeed put things out for bid, but the specs often limit competition, as
do political requirements (I'm told that the Soviet rifle has much better
performance when dirty than does the American, but do can you see
the American government buying, say, knock-offs of that design?)

>>>I agree with Piotr.  I'd rather believe in people than believe in
>>>libertaria anytime.
>>>
>>
>>That's quite a statment for someone who seems to be advocating the
>>welfare state.....  Do you believe in people, or do you believe in
>>people with the right chains on them?
>
>In the absence of decent moral education, I believe in people with the
>right chains on them.
>
>Tony Wuersch
>{amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
>/* End of text from inmet:net.politics.t */

That last sentence was so priceless that I thought I'd leave your 
signature right next to it.  It's so nice to know that you'd like to 
give people a "decent moral education".  The thought of my (hypothetical)
child getting one of which you'd approve gives me the shudders.

nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/02/85)

>/* Written  9:29 pm  Aug 22, 1985 by umcp-cs!flink in inmet:net.politics.t */
>/* ---------- "Re: Seatbelts for passengers (micro" ---------- */
>In article <160@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes:
>>...  Such patterns are common in interactions among people (they are
>>often called Prisoner's Dilemma or Free Rider situations), and in
>>general, individual rationality does not lead to a collectively
>>optimal situation.  The free market is a special case: the market
>>"works" (in the sense it may be said to work) because each agent
>>enters the marketplace *voluntarily*.  But this is not the general
>>case with social interactions.
>
>Indeed, Free Rider situations are a systematic problem for libertarianism,
>which can at best take care of negative impacts inadvertantly inflicted
>by everyone on others (e.g. pollution), not positive impacts (e.g. the
>benefits one gives others by contributing to national defense).  It
>cannot even handle all the negative impact situations adequately.  

My standard response to such questions is to ask what evidence there is
that governments do any better, including their costs -- agreed they
theoretically could internalize such things, but HAVE THEY EVER DONE IT
WELL?  OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS?  Including the little games that the
structures (nations) meant to internalize externalities tend to like
(you know, wars, slavery, oppression, genocide)?

I think not.  That government COULD do well but does not is pretty
obvious -- else, from what I've read recently, they'd probably be
adopting Clarke taxes, but they are not.

>Liber-
>tarian arguments on such issues falter and must ultimately fall back on
>a fanatic insistence on the non-initiation principle, which, unfortunately,
>is completely without ground in logic or fact.

No basis in logic?  Given that one desires all human interactions to be
voluntary, it would seem logical to forbid those that are not.

Of course, that it is desirable that neither force nor fraud should
occur, and desirable that when this happens the instigators be dealt
with somehow, are postulates.  I know of no postulates, anywhere, that
have any basis in logic or fact.  Is that what you meant?  If so, your
comment is nugatory.

>--Paul V Torek, Iconoclast for all seasons  
>(coming soon to this theater near you: torek%umich-ciprnet@csnet-relay.arpa)

P.S.  No, I've not finished Clarke -- I'm going to have to purchase it
to make serious progress, so I will.  Ta-ta....

baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (09/04/85)

> No basis in logic?  Given that one desires all human interactions to be
> voluntary, it would seem logical to forbid those that are not.
>
>				Nat Howard (nrh@inmet.UUCP)

Why should I desire that all human interactions be voluntary?  Some of the 
things I've been coerced into doing have ended up being positive elements 
in my life.  I don't enjoy being coerced, but that displeasure is only one
of a number of aspects of a given situation.  I tend to decide whether or
not an interaction was worthwhile on the basis of its effect on me and on 
others, rather than any one characteristic of the action itself.  I can 
believe that you might personally experience coercion as so galling as to 
negate in your own mind any positive result it might bring about, but there 
is no *logic* in such a perspective.  Just preference.

						Baba

nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/05/85)

If I've read White correctly, he's talking about how prosperous some
blacks had become, but not about what percentage were below the poverty
line.  Similarly, Murray talks about how many were below the poverty
line, but not how prosperous blacks in general are.  In short, I don't
see any necessary contradiction between the figures White supplies, and
the figures Murray supplies.

nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/05/85)

>/* Written  4:54 am  Sep  4, 1985 by spar!baba in inmet:net.politics.t */
>/* ---------- "Re: Orphaned Response (Crux of the" ---------- */
>> No basis in logic?  Given that one desires all human interactions to be
>> voluntary, it would seem logical to forbid those that are not.
>>
>>				Nat Howard (nrh@inmet.UUCP)
>
>Why should I desire that all human interactions be voluntary?  Some of the 
>things I've been coerced into doing have ended up being positive elements 
>in my life.  I don't enjoy being coerced, but that displeasure is only one
>of a number of aspects of a given situation.  I tend to decide whether or
>not an interaction was worthwhile on the basis of its effect on me and on 
>others, rather than any one characteristic of the action itself.  I can 
>believe that you might personally experience coercion as so galling as to 
>negate in your own mind any positive result it might bring about, but there 
>is no *logic* in such a perspective.  Just preference.
>
>						Baba

Agreed. As I pointed out in that article:

>Of course, that it is desirable that neither force nor fraud should
>occur, and desirable that when this happens the instigators be dealt
>with somehow, are postulates.  I know of no postulates, anywhere, that
>have any basis in logic or fact.

As you say, and as I said, "logic" cannot be the basis for what you 
prefer.  I'm real curious to see if Paul Torek can come up with any
social order that has a basis in "logic or fact".

janw@inmet.UUCP (10/09/85)

In article <186@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes:

>
>The following is from A. C. Pigou, *The Economics of Welfare*, 4th ed.
>(London: Macmillan, 1948; originally published 1932), p. 89.
>
>	It is evident that any transference of income from a
>	relatively rich man to a relatively poor man of similar
>	temperament, since it enables more intense wants to be
>	satisfied at the expense of less intense wants, must
>	increase the aggregate sum of satisfactions.

Question: according to Pigou, or to Richard Carnes -
does it make a difference to the aggregate sum whether
the transference is voluntary or involuntary ?

		Jan Wasilewsky

nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/09/85)

>/* Written  1:53 pm  Sep 28, 1985 by baba@spar in inmet:net.politics.t */
>/* ---------- "Re: Re: Re: Newsflash! [JoSH on Soc" ---------- */
>> Whoa!  Let's have some historical examples please, of a government that
>> CREATED wealth. [Nat Howard]
>
>Well, today marks the 50th anniversary of the completion of the Hoover
>Dam, which provides flood control, electricity, and fresh water for much
>of the the arid American Southwest.  It was planned, paid for, and is still 
>managed by the U.S government.  The wages for the (otherwise unemployed)
>workers and payment for the materials may only have been a localized 
>redistribution of tax monies, but the fact of the matter is that they
>produced something that continues to materially benefit hundreds of
>thousands (if not millions) of people.   Why isn't that wealth?
>
>						Baba
>/* End of text from inmet:net.politics.t */
>
It's wealth, but it's wealth that could have been used by individuals
in free markets to build a dam, had they been able to convince folks
that the very best return possible would be from investing in their
"Hazlitt Dam".  That the individuals taxed would have spent their money
in less obvious ways doesn't affect the fact that they would have
spent it, and it is the DIFFERENCE between how they would have done
and how the money spent in Hoover Dam did that represents whether
any wealth was created.  Their spending on other things would 
have benefited other people, but it would have been just as much
wealth, and it would have been spent in ways that seemed worthwhile
to its owners.  It would not have simply been destroyed.

As in my example from the series from the article you quote, if I take
all of Larry Kolodney's money and spend it on projects I like, it doesn't
follow that money I make (and perhaps give back to him) is created wealth.
Even if I make money, he might have done better with his own money, and
certainly it is hard to judge after I have spent it for him.  

Sure, Hoover Dam is wealth, but it's wealth transferred from people
who were then NOT hired, but cannot identify themselves.  For example,
the people who WOULD have been hired had the folks who were taxed had
a little more money to (say) fix up their houses, buy an extra suit,
get their porches fixed, and so on.  Those carpenters and tailors 
remained unemployed (or less employed).  The concrete-pourers WERE employed
(by edict).  The difference is that the people who owned that money would
have preferred to hire carpenters and tailors but could not, after
taxation, do this, and the carpenters and tailors would have a hard
time identifying themselves, and so are unlikely to lobby in Congress.

janw@inmet.UUCP (12/30/85)

[Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,lll-crg,hplabs}!qantel!gabor]
>[McCarthyism remembered]
>[By the way, there was no comparable witchhunt following the Vietnam defeat:
>the reputations of most of the potential scapegoats are almost intact. 
>MacNamara and Kissinger are respected elder statesmen whereas the 'old China
>hands' were never heard from after the purges of the fifties. What changed?]

This is just a guess, but possibly the relevant difference was not in 
the war just lost (China, Vietnam) but in the *current* international
situation. In the early 50's, cold war at its fiercest; Korea; the Soviet
nuclear threat first felt. In the 70's, detente.

Therefore, the McCarthy syndrome may be comparable not to the post-Vietnam
situation, but to the beginning of WWII: to such things as the suppression
of German-American Bund, spy scares and, of course, the internment
of Japanese Americans. This last single act certainly far exceeds all the
combined indignities of McCarthyism, though it was different in style.

And the *fall* of McCarthy came soon after the first after-Stalin
glimmering of detente.

nrh@inmet.UUCP (01/08/86)

>/* Written  2:36 pm  Dec 18, 1985 by berman@psuvax1 in inmet:net.politics.t */
>>
>> >/* Written 12:45 pm  Dec 13, 1985 by berman@psuvax1 in inmet:net.politics.t */
>> >
>> >Power of banks: forcing people to do what they do not want to do.
>> >Example: you want to borrow from us, you must deposit here (my
>> >personal experience).
>>
>> Omigosh!  What a huge amount of power: to trade with you only
>> on terms they find agreeable!  (Of course, YOU must also
>> find the terms agreeable).  Oh woe!
>>
>Using your movie theater example: it is like if you were told that
>you can watch "Rainbow bright" only if you also buy tickets for "Rocky XXX".
>Of course, I was not forced to make a deal: one can walk or learn how
>to repair old cars.  Still, I view many package deals as infringement
>of my freedom, if there is no pure deal around.

And, as Laura points out, a perfect opportunity for a new bank to open
up, and offer the "pure" deals.  It's not at all uncommon that one
must buy a ticket to a double feature, even though one wants to watch
only one film.  Because of the pressure of competition, such double
features seldom cost (say) twice as much as a regular film.  Would you
prefer that the banks simply charged higher interest rates and offered
you the pure deal?  No doubt you can find one, if you look....

>> It's quite true that the banks have a power to deny you a loan, but
>> they can't "force" you to do things you don't want to do unless at
>> some point you agree to this, or, of course, if the government backs
>> them up.
>>
>> >Imagine that there is no regulations.  Then you might have: you
>> >want to borrow, deposit here, insure here, use us as a brocker.
>> >Or worse: we do not like you, we will recommend everybody not
>> >to borrow you.
>>
>> Such tactics work sometimes -- and sometimes not.  Would you like
>> to know where it's used a lot around here?  Bless you Piotr!  The
>> GOVERNMENT operates in this way: ..............................
>>
>Which just supports my claim that not only the GOVERNMENT has
>the power.

No, Piotr.  It supports the notion that the government is not a source
of purely good tactics in this context.  I don't deny for a moment
that banking types would like to collude for purposes of blackballing,
(I don't assert it, but I don't deny it either) but (happily) they
tend not to believe each other, and when they do, there's an opening
for what Laura has named the "Toad Terrific" bank to make a killing by
applying better methods of discernment to the alleged deadbeats.

>> >Example two: you do not want a financial chaos, help us (and pay
>> >taxes to do it).
>>
>> Oho!  A government goes to a bank and offers to pay more money back
>> later in exchange for a quantity of money today.  The bank agrees.
>> The government, likely through incompetence or lack of nerve, FAILS to
>> meet the deadlines.
>>
>> In the world of individuals, (...)
>>
>> In EITHER case, the bank involved would be justified in  exercising
>> whatever non-payment clause there was in your loan when you refused to
>> pay.
>>
>You missed the point by a mile.  Bank can invoke a non-payment clause
>against a country, but only to a point.  In 19 century the bank
>would ask its government (US, France etc.) to size the customs of
>the debtor country.  Nowadays, this is not practicable, so there
>exists an intricate system in which the rich governments subsidize
>the poor governments so that the latter can pay increased spreads
>to banks.

I don't think I've missed the point, but can you state it in one
sentence?  If you're arguing that banks have too much power (because
they can extract money, however indirectly, from the US taxpayer as
taxes or as inflation)
there we agree,  but it is the government which gives them that power
that has seriously misbehaved.

If you're arguing that banks have too much power because they have a
lock on money-loaning and certain financial services, I ask you: why?
If the answer involves any sort of support from government, then I
find it quite reasonable to take away that support.

>
>> >Depriving you of an asset you use (like a house) may be quite a
>> >punishment.  Unregulated power of banks could be very destructive.
>>
>> I suppose you'll find this tough to believe, but the ungrateful S.O.B.'s
>> that run the movie theater nearby have just stopped showing a movie I
>> liked.  Further, even when they were running it, they insisted I *pay*
>> them when I saw it!  Oh the injustice! .....................
>>
>Remember the double feature example which I gave before.  Imagine
>also that one company buys from the leading studios the franchise
>to show their movies in, say, Cleveland.  Afterwards, whoeverer
>in Cleveland wants to see a movie must either a. agree to their terms,
>b. travel 30 miles.  This is exactly what I mean by concentration of
>power.

OR see it on Cable, OR buy the video-cassette, OR wait a while for it
to come around to the revival houses, OR rent the film privately.
Your example here wears thin: the movie studio has a monopoly on a
particular film, but nobody has a monopoly on lending wealth (unless
the government makes some pretty strange moves).  The government
is capable of this, and to some extent they've done it -- but it is the
government intervention that limits the range of credit services, not
those who would provide credit.

>Of all the bissnesses, banks can potentially wield the greatest power.
>You as individual may do not feel it this way, but every kind of
>bussiness needs credit.  Once there is a leverage, a dependance may
>appear.

If banks are accorded the exclusive right to lend money
by the government (and here you'd better bear in mind that there
are credit unions, international banks, and the bond market) then
your statement is true.  If the government makes moneylending contingent
upon being in favor with the government (not just within a simple law, but
in favor) then your statement is true.  Other than that, I don't see
how bankers could retain a monopoly (which is what you seem to fear).

>> Piotr, get it straight: you can  prevent any bank from gaining undue
>> influence over you by making sure that a) You are willing and able to
>> make the payments, and b) The other terms of the loan don't discommode you.
>> and not taking the loan unless you are satisfied on counts a & b.
>>
>> I've no patience with Snidely Whiplash, but you rarely find Snidely Whiplash
>> in the real world.
>>
>> It's a SHAME that folks sometimes can't make their interest payments, and
>> it's also sad when nations can't.  But let's hear no moaning about the
>> power the banks wield: it's power given to them by their borrowers,
>> and if that degree of power is unjust, let's have a closer look at the
>> borrowers, shall we?  It's not that the banks are complete nice-guys,
>> or that any consequence of a credit shutoff is deserved (what about
>> children born during a loan-induced boom who suffer during a collection-
>> induced bust, for example?) but merely that the power stems not
>> from the banks but from the borrowers.
>
>The life is more complex than your down to earth example.
>Consider:  John V. Decent deposits money in HugeBancorp.  The president
>of HB is fed lavishly by president for life of Whereitis, gen. Bozo.
>Wheritis receves a loan, 1 billion dollars (plus another 10 billion from
>AnotherBankIntown, ZillionYenIncorp etc.).
>
>7 years later (now we have seven lean years, following 7 fat ones).
>Gen. Bozo is retired in St. Tropez, the former president of HB
>similarly enjoys Boca Raton, the citizens of Whereitis learn that
>they need an austerity program after years of depositing billions
>in Swiss accounts of the most distinguished citizens, John V. Decent
>learns that unless his government will help, his bank account will
>go down the drain, the financial panic will drive interest rates
>to the sky and his employer will bancrupt.  Now, is there a little
>of a reap-off here?

There is indeed.  Did you spot the quick fingers of the president of
HB?   Did you note that if HB were merely one of many, many, agencies that
had to CONVINCE people of their credit-worthiness (rather than have the
government DEFINE them as being credit-worthy, he'd never have gotten
away with it?  Do you see why, in such an environment, Mr. Decent would
invest in a fund of such things, rather than betting his all on
HB?  Do you see that such manipulations are greatly eased if the HB
president can say: (as they do, over and over) that they're insured
by the FDIC?

>In the unregulated past the above scenario differed:  John. V. Decent
>actually was loosing his account and job.  And the reap-off was bigger.

Ho hum.  I disagree.  In the unregulated past, we didn't have
Continental Illinois,  and Chrysler Corp bailouts to show folks that the
way to save their business is NOT to keep it streamlined and  honest, but
to have a good Washington man.  (Having a good Washington man is SOOO
much more efficient.... and the little competitors, just starting out,
don't have one to protect them against YOUR Washington man).

By the way, unregulated private industry has never come close to
equaling the failures of banking regulation: the French Assignat
inflation, the Collapse of the 1920's German economy, and yes, the
Great Depression.  If you doubt the  government's blame for the Great
Depression, take a look at what Milton Friedman has to say about it.