nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/24/85)
>/* Written 5:29 pm Sep 10, 1985 by mmt@dciem in inmet:net.politics.t */ >/* ---------- "Re: Re: Newsflash! [JoSH on Sociali" ---------- */ > >>"political reality" Isn't that an oxymoron? :-) Besides, government is not >>a source of wealth. Unlike uncles, government cannot generate wealth; it can >>give only what it takes from people who produce. > >That is false. Wealth is created by the re-organization of things >(the reduction of entropy, if you like). Government most definitely >can aid in such organization. Whether it is the most efficient way >of doing so is a different story, but to regard government as only >a transfer medium for existing wealth is like seeing a painting as >a transfer medium for oil and pigment. > Whoa! Let's have some historical examples please, of a government that CREATED wealth. Granted that governments seldom actually started out to destroy wealth, I've never heard of one that actually engaged in NET creation of wealth (such a government would not need to tax people, as it would turn a profit). Localized increase of wealth is no trick at all for a government, but to call this "creation of wealth" amounts to assuming that the money in the tax-collector's coffers just "appears from nowhere".
lkk@teddy.UUCP (09/27/85)
In article <28200103@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: > >Whoa! Let's have some historical examples please, of a government that >CREATED wealth. Granted that governments seldom actually started out >to destroy wealth, I've never heard of one that actually engaged in >NET creation of wealth (such a government would not need to tax people, >as it would turn a profit). Localized increase of wealth is no trick at >all for a government, but to call this "creation of wealth" >amounts to assuming that the money in the tax-collector's coffers >just "appears from nowhere". The space program. The nuclear energy program. Computers. Hoover dam. The interstate highway system. Harvard. M.I.T. UCB. Need I go on? Of course the money doesn't appear from nowhere, it comes from govt. printing presses!! (This isn't as facetious as it sounds. The entire economy, without which the concept of wealth would be meaningless. Is based on a governmentally created and controlled system of commerce.) -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa
nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/30/85)
>/* Written 5:14 pm Sep 26, 1985 by lkk@teddy in inmet:net.politics.t */ >In article <28200103@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: >> >>Whoa! Let's have some historical examples please, of a government that >>CREATED wealth. Granted that governments seldom actually started out >>to destroy wealth, I've never heard of one that actually engaged in >>NET creation of wealth (such a government would not need to tax people, >>as it would turn a profit). Localized increase of wealth is no trick at >>all for a government, but to call this "creation of wealth" >>amounts to assuming that the money in the tax-collector's coffers >>just "appears from nowhere". > > > >The space program. The nuclear energy program. Computers. > >Hoover dam. > >The interstate highway system. > >Harvard. M.I.T. UCB. > > >Need I go on? > I think you'd better go on. I asked for an example of a government that created wealth. In the list above, *NO* governments appear, and as I understand it, the government behind them all had to tax people to support its enterprises. If you think this is not an important distinction, I suggest you give me ALL of your money, so that I may go on a wild trip around the world. I will then claim to have done great things with your money, and should anyone argue that you might've done greater things, I'll say: "Oh, look at him, he just goes to soup kitchens while I go to Paris. What proof is there that he would have done anything important had he been allowed to keep his own money?". After all, *I*'ve spent the money in showy, flashy ways, perhaps used it to get in good with some corrupt official, but it would be ludicrous to claim that I'd "made" money -- I had to take it all from you. Remember, we've no way NOW of knowing what would have been done with the money left in private hands, except that it would have been employed according to what those people thought of as their best choices. People interested in this question should read "What is Seen and What is Not Seen", by Frederic Bastiat (an essay about 50 pages long) or "Economics in One Lesson", by Henry Hazlitt. I suggest that the idea of "creation" of wealth be treated as follows: If I steal $1000 of your money, and make a nickel on it (say I bet at 1 to 20,000 odds that the sun will rise tomorrow", I've made 5 cents, but you've lost (say) 30 cents interest on that money, so in fact the money has earned $0.25 LESS than it would have. I have thus LOST money, because even if I give you ALL of it back, you've $0.25 less than you did have. If I operate like a government, I'll probably bill you for the "service" I've performed, my burglar tools, and so forth, so you've probably lost more. By the way, private space programs exist (although NASA dislikes them) private nuclear research would be something I suspect you'd make illegal, Harvard, MIT, and UCB accept money from the State, but could hardly be termed (last I heard) wealth creators. My understanding was that colleges depended (2/3'rds on average) on the Alum contributions. >Of course the money doesn't appear from nowhere, it comes from >govt. printing presses!! (This isn't as facetious as it sounds. >The entire economy, without which the concept of wealth would be meaningless. >Is based on a governmentally created and controlled system of commerce.) Governmentally Created? I find that MOST difficult to believe. What records do you have to substantiate that government created commerce, rather than distorting what was there? In particular, the use of non-government-created money (such as gold) predates official money, with (so far as I know) the first government inflation being that of ancient Rome. Government "controlled"? Why yes, that's quite true, but it doesn't explain why the Chinese starvation dropped when their government began allowing folks to sell crops privately. In short, you've confused "controlled", with "aided".
lkk@teddy.UUCP (10/02/85)
In article <28200134@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: > >>/* Written 5:14 pm Sep 26, 1985 by lkk@teddy in inmet:net.politics.t */ >>In article <28200103@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: <nrh claimed that no govt. ever created wealth> <lkk responded with examples, like public colleges, hoover dam and highways> >I think you'd better go on. I asked for an example of a government >that created wealth. In the list above, *NO* governments appear, and >as I understand it, the government behind them all had to tax people >to support its enterprises. If you think this is not an important >distinction, I suggest you give me ALL of your money, so that I may go >on a wild trip around the world. I will then claim to have done great >things with your money, and should anyone argue that you might've done >greater things, I'll say: "Oh, look at him, he just goes to soup >kitchens while I go to Paris. What proof is there that he would have >done anything important had he been allowed to keep his own money?". OK, this is getting totally rediculous. The fact of the matter is that there are such things as positive externalities. Your spending my money in some arbitrary fashion does not count as one of them. >After all, *I*'ve spent the money in showy, flashy ways, perhaps used >it to get in good with some corrupt official, but it would be >ludicrous to claim that I'd "made" money -- I had to take it all from >you. Your conception of wealth (value, money) does not make any sense. If I produce something of value, but get paid for it, does that mean I didn't create any wealth, since I merely transferred the salary I got paid into the product I made? Of course not. Similarly, if the govt. gets paid (thru taxes) for the products it creates (thru organizing people into large projects for instance), it is still creating wealth. > >Remember, we've no way NOW of knowing what would have been >done with the money left in private hands, except that it would have >been employed according to what those people thought of as their >best choices. Which, as in any tragedy of the commons situation, would not have been the best macro choice. > >People interested in this question should read "What is Seen and >What is Not Seen", by Frederic Bastiat (an essay about 50 pages long) >or "Economics in One Lesson", by Henry Hazlitt. > >I suggest that the idea of "creation" of wealth be treated as follows: >If I steal $1000 of your money, and make a nickel on it (say I bet >at 1 to 20,000 odds that the sun will rise tomorrow", I've >made 5 cents, but you've lost (say) 30 cents interest on that >money, so in fact the money has earned $0.25 LESS than >it would have. I have thus LOST money, because even if I give you >ALL of it back, you've $0.25 less than you did have. If I operate >like a government, I'll probably bill you for the "service" I've >performed, my burglar tools, and so forth, so you've probably >lost more. This assumes that the return on investment in govt. is only 5 cents. I'd say its quite a bit higher. > >By the way, private space programs exist (although NASA dislikes them) >private nuclear research would be something I suspect you'd make illegal, >Harvard, MIT, and UCB accept money from the State, but could hardly be >termed (last I heard) wealth creators. My understanding was that >colleges depended (2/3'rds on average) on the Alum contributions. Totally irrelevant information. Private space programs exist by parasitical use of technology developed by NASA. Forget about ACCEPTING money from the state Harvard, MIT and UCB were created by the state. MIT is land grant, Harvard was created by the Mass. Bay Colony govt., UCB is owned and run by the state. I don't know about the others, but MIT total budget is around $600 million, of which almost all comes from government funding. Perhaps they rely on alumni contributions for 2/3 of their educational costs, but those are relatively small compared to research. Not to mention GSL, and Pell grants, and ROTC scholarships. > >>Of course the money doesn't appear from nowhere, it comes from >>govt. printing presses!! (This isn't as facetious as it sounds. >>The entire economy, without which the concept of wealth would be meaningless. >>Is based on a governmentally created and controlled system of commerce.) > >Governmentally Created? I find that MOST difficult to believe. What >records do you have to substantiate that government created commerce, >rather than distorting what was there? Well, I can point to the fact that the grandaddy of all "free-market" systems, in 19th century England, was created by the govt. Before the turn of the 19th century, England was still a feudal society. Most of the population lived on Manors, where they worked the land owned by the Lord. The Lords discovered that it was more profitable to use this land for grazing sheep, which could be used in the growing wool industry. So they had a law passed, "The Enclosure Acts", which kicked all of the peasantry off the feudal manors, and into the city, where they provided an abundant labor force for the growing class of factory owners. By almost any comparison, life in the city was much worse than life on the manor. This move heralded the start of the rise of brittish "free-market" capitalism, although from this example, we can see that there was nothing free market about it. POINT: No economic system has ever existed in a vacuum. It is always the result of certain power relations within a society. There has never in history been anything like your mythical free market. To create one, using the power of the state, would be just as arbitrary and coercive and creating any other system. The relations of power in society today have an historical basis in govt. interference. To withdraw the role of the govt. now would simply institutionalize certain arbitrary inequalities that exist today. In particular, the use of >non-government-created money (such as gold) predates official money, >with (so far as I know) the first government inflation being that of >ancient Rome. Official money does not a govt. controlled economy make. (You seem to have this fetish with money). How about govt. controlled agriculture in Egypt in 5000BC. In fact what differentiated "civilizations", in the early history of man, from mere roaming nomads, was the use of some "authority" to control agriculture (and thus commerce). > >Government "controlled"? Why yes, that's quite true, but it doesn't >explain why the Chinese starvation dropped when their government >began allowing folks to sell crops privately. In short, you've confused >"controlled", with "aided". Non Sequitor (but what else is new). -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing. - Helen Keller
nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/08/85)
>/* Written 12:24 pm Oct 2, 1985 by lkk@teddy in inmet:net.politics.t */ >In article <28200134@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: >> >>>/* Written 5:14 pm Sep 26, 1985 by lkk@teddy in inmet:net.politics.t */ >>>In article <28200103@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: > <nrh claimed that no govt. ever created wealth> Uh oh. Maybe I'd better post it again. I claimed: >>>Whoa! Let's have some historical examples please, of a government that >>>CREATED wealth. Granted that governments seldom actually started out >>>to destroy wealth, I've never heard of one that actually engaged in >>>NET creation of wealth (such a government would not need to tax people, >>>as it would turn a profit). Localized increase of wealth is no trick at >>>all for a government, but to call this "creation of wealth" >>>amounts to assuming that the money in the tax-collector's coffers >>>just "appears from nowhere". > > <lkk responded with examples, like public colleges, hoover dam > and highways> > > >>I think you'd better go on. I asked for an example of a government >>that created wealth. In the list above, *NO* governments appear, and >>as I understand it, the government behind them all had to tax people >>to support its enterprises. If you think this is not an important >>distinction, I suggest you give me ALL of your money, so that I may go >>on a wild trip around the world. I will then claim to have done great >>things with your money, and should anyone argue that you might've done >>greater things, I'll say: "Oh, look at him, he just goes to soup >>kitchens while I go to Paris. What proof is there that he would have >>done anything important had he been allowed to keep his own money?". > > >OK, this is getting totally rediculous. The fact of the matter is that >there are such things as positive externalities. Your spending my >money in some arbitrary fashion does not count as one of them. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that "Your spending my money in some arbitrary fashion does not count as dealing with positive externalities, hence is not acceptable (unlike government spending, which is acceptable because it IS dealing with externalities)". Well, an interesting point. Unfortunately for you, the government has no good way of limiting itself to doing good things. I invite you, for example, to show me how the Viet-Nam war was a positive externality opportunity, or how McCarthyism benefited us all in ways we could not have been made to pay for. In short, I invite you to show that government is a NET good (a tough task). To argue that it, unlike the market, can take advantage of positive externality situations, or deal properly with negative externality ones, is not enough. The fact is that government does NOT limit itself to this, and does many bad things as well. This is not nit-picking. To argue that the government COULD do things well, if only it were (say) honest, or the way you want, is to ignore the cruel fact that one cannot simply put any conceivable dynamic (as David Friedman puts it) into a system. If, for example, the government was really interested in dealing with positive externalities, we'd see Clarke taxes everywhere, but I certainly haven't heard of any.... >>After all, *I*'ve spent the money in showy, flashy ways, perhaps used >>it to get in good with some corrupt official, but it would be >>ludicrous to claim that I'd "made" money -- I had to take it all from >>you. > >Your conception of wealth (value, money) does not make any sense. >If I produce something of value, but get paid for it, does that mean I didn't >create any wealth, since I merely transferred the salary I got paid into >the product I made? Of course not. Similarly, if the govt. gets paid (thru >taxes) for the products it creates (thru organizing people into large projects >for instance), it is still creating wealth. Nope! If I pay you for something freely, and you build it, it means that each of us valued the thing he got (in my case the widget, in yours the salary) MORE than what he had (in my case the money, in your case the time to build the widget). Free commerce is thus a positive-sum game; we both have more at the end than we had, and we BOTH think so. Taxation is not like that. The government does not, every year, offer me some range of services in response to my offer of money. It provides those services (poorly) willy-nilly, and demands the money upon threat of imprisonment. For those who like it, fine, but I'm not one of them, hence for me (and for everyone who thinks the government *ISN'T* worth its cost) this is not obviously a positive sum game. Certainly it *could* be, but short of the Clarke-tax mechanism (which you will note is not widespread) there's no basis for thinking that the government is increasing NET public good. >>Remember, we've no way NOW of knowing what would have been >>done with the money left in private hands, except that it would have >>been employed according to what those people thought of as their >>best choices. > >Which, as in any tragedy of the commons situation, would not have been >the best macro choice. That's quite true. I'm most intrigued to hear this. Do you have some notion that the government IS responding well to tragedy of the commons? A revenue bill was making its way through congress with a rider attached (pardon me if I've got the terminology wrong) that in some way condemns Satanism. Is this dealing properly with tragedy of the commons? How about the Star Wars defense? Is that dealing properly with some economic externality? >>People interested in this question should read "What is Seen and >>What is Not Seen", by Frederic Bastiat (an essay about 50 pages long) >>or "Economics in One Lesson", by Henry Hazlitt. >> >>I suggest that the idea of "creation" of wealth be treated as follows: >>If I steal $1000 of your money, and make a nickel on it (say I bet >>at 1 to 20,000 odds that the sun will rise tomorrow", I've >>made 5 cents, but you've lost (say) 30 cents interest on that >>money, so in fact the money has earned $0.25 LESS than >>it would have. I have thus LOST money, because even if I give you >>ALL of it back, you've $0.25 less than you did have. If I operate >>like a government, I'll probably bill you for the "service" I've >>performed, my burglar tools, and so forth, so you've probably >>lost more. > >This assumes that the return on investment in govt. is only 5 cents. >I'd say its quite a bit higher. > And there it is, ladies and gentlemen. Larry Kolodney "says" it's higher. Of course, in the face of the quickly-shrinking deficit, we should believe him. In the light of the strict "spend it all on positive externality opportunities" philosophy of Congress, we should believe him. In the light of the near-universal use of Clarke taxes, we should believe him. Pfui! >>By the way, private space programs exist (although NASA dislikes them) >>private nuclear research would be something I suspect you'd make illegal, >>Harvard, MIT, and UCB accept money from the State, but could hardly be >>termed (last I heard) wealth creators. My understanding was that >>colleges depended (2/3'rds on average) on the Alum contributions. > >Totally irrelevant information. Private space programs exist by parasitical >use of technology developed by NASA. Not relevant. There's no reason to think that private space programs NEEDED NASA to develop the technology on their own. Left to their own devices, private industry would surely have developed technology for dealing with the space environment, just as private industry developed techniques for dealing with the ocean environment. To argue that ONLY government could do it because government did it FIRST is rather silly. >Forget about ACCEPTING money from the state Harvard, MIT and UCB were created >by the state. MIT is land grant, Harvard was created by the Mass. Bay Colony >govt., UCB is owned and run by the state. > >I don't know about the others, but MIT total budget is around $600 million, of >which almost all comes from government funding. Perhaps they rely on alumni >contributions for 2/3 of their educational costs, but those are relatively >small compared to research. I called MIT to verify this interesting statistic. Here's a rough breakdown of the MIT FY 85 projections. $717.1 million for FYI 1985 cost (how much it costs to run things) $710.3 million rev (money coming in) Of that last figure: $102.1 million tuition $97.9 investment income, gifts, funds, etc. $25.9 million, dining, dorms, etc. 485.4 million (sponsored reasearch, not all gov't) Of that 485.4 million: $225 million on campus research. 80% of which is government sponsored (DOE 55 million DO Heath & human services, 40 million DOD 38 million NSF 34 million industry 33.5 million) 260 million Lincoln Labs (off campus) 100% government spending The source was Mr. Charley Ball, Asst' director of the MIT news office, Lincoln labs is run by MIT under contract from the government, but is not a "part" of MIT. It's not on campus, as Mr. Ball puts it. Including Lincoln Labs, we have: (0.8 * 225 + 260)/717.1 = 62% paid for by the Feds. Excluding Lincoln Labs (after all, that money is not going to support MIT proper but Lincoln Labs, a research establishment of the government) we have: 225/(717.1 - 260) = 49.2% This will certainly make me view with great interest future claims by Larry that this or that is "almost all" supported by government. > >Not to mention GSL, and Pell grants, and ROTC scholarships. > Agreed, the government does these things -- but in the "I take your money and do what I want" scenario, I can also give some of your money to freezing little match girls, or use it to send friends of mine to schools. Just because I do SOME good things with your money doesn't excuse the fact that I stole it. >>>Of course the money doesn't appear from nowhere, it comes from >>>govt. printing presses!! (This isn't as facetious as it sounds. >>>The entire economy, without which the concept of wealth would be meaningless. >>>Is based on a governmentally created and controlled system of commerce.) >> >>Governmentally Created? I find that MOST difficult to believe. What >>records do you have to substantiate that government created commerce, >>rather than distorting what was there? > >Well, I can point to the fact that the grandaddy of all "free-market" systems, >in 19th century England, was created by the govt. Before the turn of the >19th century, England was still a feudal society. Most of the population lived >on Manors, where they worked the land owned by the Lord. > >The Lords discovered that it was more profitable to use this land for grazing >sheep, which could be used in the growing wool industry. So they had a law >passed, "The Enclosure Acts", which kicked all of the peasantry off the feudal >manors, and into the city, where they provided an abundant labor force for the >growing class of factory owners. THIS is what you're calling the "grandaddy of all 'free-market' systems" >By almost any comparison, life in the city was >much worse than life on the manor. Excuse me, but I'd like a little more evidence, please, that the folks at the manor had to be forced to go to the city. The way *I* heard it was that they went to the city because of superior opportunities there. Of course, one may argue that certain aspects of life were better on the manor, but it flies in the face of the fact that the people from the farms evaluated things differently (else they'd have stayed on the manors). Of course if the legitimate OWNERS of the manors kicked them off, then where's your kick? If I decide that "by almost any comparison", it's more pleasant to enslave you and live off your wages, you can legitimately argue that it is not the NUMBER of possible comparisons that matters, but their relative validity. >This move heralded the start of the rise of brittish "free-market" capitalism, >although from this example, we can see that there was nothing free market about >it. > Huh? That it "heralded the start" says NOTHING about its being a necessary part, or a consistent part of a later laissez-faire economy. Economic prosperity in Germany may have been said to "herald the start" of German imperialism in WWII, but economic prosperity is hardly a road to or determinant of war. >POINT: No economic system has ever existed in a vacuum. It is always the >result of certain power relations within a society. POINT: I'm not contesting that. An economic system must involve people, and people must have power relations. Your statement is (so far) nugatory. >There has never in history been anything like your mythical free market. Now, Larry, didn't you just get through implying that Great Briton WAS like this (although you had hold of the wrong end of things)? >To create one, using the power of the state, would be just as arbitrary and >coercive and creating any other system. Tsk! Not so. To have a state which merely refrains from coercion except to prevent coercion is hardly as coercive as having a state that coerces regularly and arbitrarily. The US constitution places limits on the government's power to coerce (not very strong limits, but...) and hence is a less coercive document (when instituted) than, say, the Code Napoleon. >The relations of power in society >today have an historical basis in govt. interference. To withdraw the role of >the govt. now would simply institutionalize certain arbitrary inequalities that >exist today. Excuse me, but I doubt if that's true. It amounts to an acceptance of the notion that only the rich get richer, and that they don't sometimes get poorer. Simply not true. > In particular, the use of >>non-government-created money (such as gold) predates official money, >>with (so far as I know) the first government inflation being that of >>ancient Rome. > >Official money does not a govt. controlled economy make. (You seem to have >this fetish with money). It does if it's enforced by the state. In France, at one point, there was a death penalty for asking if you were to be paid in Silver or in paper money. If the state may issue unlimited paper money, and execute people for not taking it (for even ASKING about it) then you have a government controlled economy in the same way that if I can kill you for publishing something I don't like, we would then have a "Nat Howard" controlled press. >How about govt. controlled agriculture in Egypt in >5000BC. How 'bout those Red Sox? (What you hear me saying is that you're wandering). >In fact what differentiated "civilizations", in the early history of >man, from mere roaming nomads, was the use of some "authority" to control >agriculture (and thus commerce). True, but doesn't for a moment implied that government created commerce. It would be like saying that "Government invented hatred", or "Government created the you-cut-and-I'll-choose trick", or "Government created taking turns". Government may abet these things, but it's rather silly to think that government CREATED them. >>Government "controlled"? Why yes, that's quite true, but it doesn't >>explain why the Chinese starvation dropped when their government >>began allowing folks to sell crops privately. In short, you've confused >>"controlled", with "aided". > > >Non Sequitor (but what else is new). It's hardly a non sequitur. Your point was that government aids commerce, that government is RESPONSIBLE for commerce. It would follow that greater government involvement would mean better commerce, hence (and I'm assuming we agree that better commerce means more prosperity) more prosperity. In China, it didn't happen this way, despite a very large degree of government control over commerce. In fact, the degree of prosperity went up when the Chinese government RELAXED its control, so I hand you a counterexample, not a non sequitur.
lkk@teddy.UUCP (10/11/85)
In article <28200160@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: > > >If I understand you correctly, you're saying that "Your spending my >money in some arbitrary fashion does not count as dealing with >positive externalities, hence is not acceptable (unlike government >spending, which is acceptable because it IS dealing with >externalities)". Well, an interesting point. Unfortunately for you, >the government has no good way of limiting itself to doing good things. >I invite you, for example, to show me how the Viet-Nam war was a positive >externality opportunity, or how McCarthyism benefited us all in ways we >could not have been made to pay for. In short, I invite you to show that >government is a NET good (a tough task). To argue that it, unlike the >market, can take advantage of positive externality situations, or deal >properly with negative externality ones, is not enough. The fact is >that government does NOT limit itself to this, and does many bad things >as well. I can't PROVE that the govt. is a net positive force. But you can't prove that private enterprise is a net positive force either. I believe in a mixture of public and private enterprise, while you take the dogmatic position that *NO* public expenditure ever is a good thing. > >>>By the way, private space programs exist (although NASA dislikes them) >>>private nuclear research would be something I suspect you'd make illegal, >>>Harvard, MIT, and UCB accept money from the State, but could hardly be >>>termed (last I heard) wealth creators. My understanding was that >>>colleges depended (2/3'rds on average) on the Alum contributions. >> >>Totally irrelevant information. Private space programs exist by parasitical >>use of technology developed by NASA. > >Not relevant. There's no reason to think that private space programs NEEDED >NASA to develop the technology on their own. Left to their own devices, >private industry would surely have developed technology for dealing with >the space environment, just as private industry developed techniques for >dealing with the ocean environment. To argue that ONLY government could >do it because government did it FIRST is rather silly. > Oh be serious. Ship technology was developed by NAVIES. The amount of investment required for space and ocean ventures were *SO* great and risky that no one was going to put up the funds for a commercial venture. >>Forget about ACCEPTING money from the state Harvard, MIT and UCB were created >>by the state. MIT is land grant, Harvard was created by the Mass. Bay Colony >>govt., UCB is owned and run by the state. >> >>I don't know about the others, but MIT total budget is around $600 million, of >>which almost all comes from government funding. Perhaps they rely on alumni >>contributions for 2/3 of their educational costs, but those are relatively >>small compared to research. > >I called MIT to verify this interesting statistic. Here's a rough breakdown >of the MIT FY 85 projections. > >$717.1 million for FYI 1985 cost (how much it costs to run things) >$710.3 million rev (money coming in) > >Of that last figure: >$102.1 million tuition >$97.9 investment income, gifts, funds, etc. >$25.9 million, dining, dorms, etc. >485.4 million (sponsored reasearch, not all gov't) > Of that 485.4 million: > $225 million on campus research. > 80% of which is government sponsored > (DOE 55 million > DO Heath & human services, 40 million > DOD 38 million > NSF 34 million > industry 33.5 million) > > 260 million Lincoln Labs (off campus) > 100% government spending > >The source was Mr. Charley Ball, Asst' director of the MIT news office, > >Lincoln labs is run by MIT under contract from the government, but is not >a "part" of MIT. It's not on campus, as Mr. Ball puts it. > >Including Lincoln Labs, we have: (0.8 * 225 + 260)/717.1 = 62% paid >for by the Feds. > >Excluding Lincoln Labs (after all, that money is not going to >support MIT proper but Lincoln Labs, a research establishment of the >government) we have: > > 225/(717.1 - 260) = 49.2% > >This will certainly make me view with great interest future claims >by Larry that this or that is "almost all" supported by government. If you include GSL and Pell Grants and ROTC, the number is certainly greater than 50%. > >> >>Not to mention GSL, and Pell grants, and ROTC scholarships. >> > >Agreed, the government does these things -- but in the "I take your >money and do what I want" scenario, I can also give some of your money >to freezing little match girls, or use it to send friends of mine to >schools. Just because I do SOME good things with your money doesn't >excuse the fact that I stole it. This is just falling back on your bogus circular definition of theft. > > <the example of the English Enclosure Laws> > > >Excuse me, but I'd like a little more evidence, please, that the folks >at the manor had to be forced to go to the city. The way *I* heard it >was that they went to the city because of superior opportunities there. >Of course, one may argue that certain aspects of life were better >on the manor, but it flies in the face of the fact that the people from >the farms evaluated things differently (else they'd have stayed on >the manors). Of course if the legitimate OWNERS of the manors kicked them >off, then where's your kick? If I decide that "by almost any comparison", >it's more pleasant to enslave you and live off your wages, you can >legitimately argue that it is not the NUMBER of possible comparisons >that matters, but their relative validity. Well, what do you mean the "legitimate owners" These "legitimate" owners were the royalty and nobility of England, whose ancestors aquired the land via war and conquest (i.e. "stealing" it). > >>POINT: No economic system has ever existed in a vacuum. It is always the >>result of certain power relations within a society. > >POINT: I'm not contesting that. An economic system must involve people, >and people must have power relations. Your statement is (so far) nugatory. > >>There has never in history been anything like your mythical free market. > >Now, Larry, didn't you just get through implying that Great Briton >WAS like this (although you had hold of the wrong end of things)? There has been no "natural" free market. They've always been creations of govts. > >>To create one, using the power of the state, would be just as arbitrary and >>coercive and creating any other system. > >Tsk! Not so. To have a state which merely refrains from coercion except to >prevent coercion is hardly as coercive as having a state that coerces >regularly and arbitrarily. The US constitution places limits on the >government's power to coerce (not very strong limits, but...) and hence is >a less coercive document (when instituted) than, say, the Code Napoleon. Since property rights at the moment were at some point determined by coercion, a laissez-faire government merely maintains, by way of force, the result of previous injustice. > >>The relations of power in society >>today have an historical basis in govt. interference. To withdraw the role of >>the govt. now would simply institutionalize certain arbitrary inequalities that >>exist today. > >Excuse me, but I doubt if that's true. It amounts to an acceptance of >the notion that only the rich get richer, and that they >don't sometimes get poorer. Simply not true. Sometimes they do, but it usually a surprise when it happens, even noteworthy. Horatio Alger's do exist, and the stories of their very rare occurances are always widely publicized to maintain the myth of hard work and determination being "all that it takes" > >> In particular, the use of >>>non-government-created money (such as gold) predates official money, >>>with (so far as I know) the first government inflation being that of >>>ancient Rome. >> >>Official money does not a govt. controlled economy make. (You seem to have >>this fetish with money). > >It does if it's enforced by the state. In France, at one point, there was >a death penalty for asking if you were to be paid in Silver or in paper money. >If the state may issue unlimited paper money, and execute people for not >taking it (for even ASKING about it) then you have a government controlled >economy in the same way that if I can kill you for publishing something I >don't like, we would then have a "Nat Howard" controlled press. This misses my point, which was that govt. controlled economies existed BEFORE money. I agree with the above paragraph, govt. printing of money certainly is a form of control. > >>How about govt. controlled agriculture in Egypt in >>5000BC. > >How 'bout those Red Sox? (What you hear me saying is that you're wandering). > Not at all. Egypt had the one of the first civilizations, and it was hardly a free market. >>In fact what differentiated "civilizations", in the early history of >>man, from mere roaming nomads, was the use of some "authority" to control >>agriculture (and thus commerce). > >True, but doesn't for a moment implied that government created commerce. It >would be like saying that "Government invented hatred", or "Government >created the you-cut-and-I'll-choose trick", or "Government created taking >turns". Government may abet these things, but it's rather silly to think >that government CREATED them. Of course there was small scale barter before govts. But because large scale investment requires a *stable* environment, *IT* was impossible without constraints on society. > >>>Government "controlled"? Why yes, that's quite true, but it doesn't >>>explain why the Chinese starvation dropped when their government >>>began allowing folks to sell crops privately. In short, you've confused >>>"controlled", with "aided". >> >> >>Non Sequitor (but what else is new). > >It's hardly a non sequitur. Your point was that government aids commerce, >that government is RESPONSIBLE for commerce. It would follow that greater >government involvement would mean better commerce, hence (and I'm assuming >we agree that better commerce means more prosperity) more prosperity. Huh? Of course govt. interference doesn't *always* help commerce. It, like any other planned endeavor, has to be done properly. Don't point out only the failures. >In China, it didn't happen this way, despite a very large degree of >government control over commerce. In fact, the degree of prosperity went >up when the Chinese government RELAXED its control, so I hand you >a counterexample, not a non sequitur. -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing. - Helen Keller
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (10/11/85)
>>That is false. Wealth is created by the re-organization of things >>(the reduction of entropy, if you like). Government most definitely >>can aid in such organization. Whether it is the most efficient way >>of doing so is a different story, but to regard government as only >>a transfer medium for existing wealth is like seeing a painting as >>a transfer medium for oil and pigment. >> > >Whoa! Let's have some historical examples please, of a government that >CREATED wealth. Granted that governments seldom actually started out >to destroy wealth, I've never heard of one that actually engaged in >NET creation of wealth (such a government would not need to tax people, >as it would turn a profit). Localized increase of wealth is no trick at >all for a government, but to call this "creation of wealth" >amounts to assuming that the money in the tax-collector's coffers >just "appears from nowhere". Whoa, indeed! You totally misunderstand the idea. I never said that Governments CREATE wealth, just that the orgaization they provide assists in the creation of wealth. Your question would be better phrased (and just as unanswerable) if you said: Show examples of two societies equivalent in natural resources, one of which was an anarchy and the other having a government, in which the one with the government was wealthier. In the absence of comparable societies, and in the absence of any anarchies lasting more than a few weeks, no such tests can be made. It seems obvious to me that the institutionalized means of communication and organization provided by (yes!) the bureaucracy assist greatly in developing both social and material orgainization. In fact, a few months ago, libertarians were arguing strenuously that such was the case (remember "no monoplies without governments to help?). So, I argue not that Governments create wealth, but that their presence assists in the creation of wealth, which is measured not in money but in organization (i.e. reduction of entropy). To measure wealth in money is to measure it not at all. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/16/85)
>/* Written 5:49 pm Oct 10, 1985 by lkk@teddy in inmet:net.politics.t */ >In article <28200160@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: >> >> >>If I understand you correctly, you're saying that "Your spending my >>money in some arbitrary fashion does not count as dealing with >>positive externalities, hence is not acceptable (unlike government >>spending, which is acceptable because it IS dealing with >>externalities)". Well, an interesting point. Unfortunately for you, >>the government has no good way of limiting itself to doing good things. >>I invite you, for example, to show me how the Viet-Nam war was a positive >>externality opportunity, or how McCarthyism benefited us all in ways we >>could not have been made to pay for. In short, I invite you to show that >>government is a NET good (a tough task). To argue that it, unlike the >>market, can take advantage of positive externality situations, or deal >>properly with negative externality ones, is not enough. The fact is >>that government does NOT limit itself to this, and does many bad things >>as well. > >I can't PROVE that the govt. is a net positive force. But you can't prove that >private enterprise is a net positive force either. > Larry! No squirming! The point in question was that government's existence might be justified if it was shown to be the agency necessary to take advantage of positive externalities (or avoid negative ones). I don't need to prove that "private enterprise is a net positive force", because (though you may find it difficult to believe) I am not so much pro free enterprise as interested in freedom. If it turns out that this results in lots of free enterprise, fine. If a great many communes with free exit result, also fine. Please bear in mind that the forces of freedom from government don't propose to break down anyones door, send your young men off to war unwillingly, or tell you what to do with your life, but the forces FOR government have, at one time or another claimed that these things were necessary to pay "the price of civilization". What I'm curious about, and what I hope to get other people interested in, is just how good a deal we can get on civilization -- whether we need to do all, some, or none of these things. When I speak of freedom, remember: it is not the libertarians who wish to turn your livelihood over to a band of politicos, but the statists. I'm trying to engender skepticism. If government-types feel there is a need for their sort of organization, fine -- LET THEM MAKE THEIR CASE. If the IRS, the Draft Board, and the Public School system really need to exist, then let's have some proof, but in the ABSENCE of proof, (and in the presence of false proofs) people should have to pay for none of these things. >I believe in a mixture of public and private enterprise, while you take the >dogmatic position that *NO* public expenditure ever is a good thing. > Actually, I hold (among others) two dogmatic beliefs: 1) There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (TANSTAAFL) and 2) There's no reason to think that governments are smarter or nicer than the people who compose them. So to put it bluntly, Larry, I think that public expenditure is wonderful, fine, useful, and delightful, BUT a "public expenditure" always entails "public revenues" (that is, forcible taxation), and there's no reason to think that the tax money will be spent more wisely by politicos than by their constituents. >>>>By the way, private space programs exist (although NASA dislikes them) >>>>private nuclear research would be something I suspect you'd make illegal, >>>>Harvard, MIT, and UCB accept money from the State, but could hardly be >>>>termed (last I heard) wealth creators. My understanding was that >>>>colleges depended (2/3'rds on average) on the Alum contributions. >>> >>>Totally irrelevant information. Private space programs exist by parasitical >>>use of technology developed by NASA. >> >>Not relevant. There's no reason to think that private space programs NEEDED >>NASA to develop the technology on their own. Left to their own devices, >>private industry would surely have developed technology for dealing with >>the space environment, just as private industry developed techniques for >>dealing with the ocean environment. To argue that ONLY government could >>do it because government did it FIRST is rather silly. >> > >Oh be serious. Ship technology was developed by NAVIES. The amount of >investment required for space and ocean ventures were *SO* great and risky >that no one was going to put up the funds for a commercial venture. I get it: "Er Admiral, a bunch of us folks were wondering what you people in the Navy do, seeing as how you don't have any marine technology". "Egad sir! THAT's what we'll do! We'll invent canoes, and barks, and so on and then...." I do not, of course, argue that navies didn't develop such technology. I hope it's clear from what I actually wrote, above, that private enterprise contributed to the development of such technology, and in some cultures (the old Icelandic, I believe) there was no central government to fund ship development, and rather rough-and-ready criminals did it. >>>Forget about ACCEPTING money from the state Harvard, MIT and UCB were created >>>by the state. MIT is land grant, Harvard was created by the Mass. Bay Colony >>>govt., UCB is owned and run by the state. >>> >>>I don't know about the others, but MIT total budget is around $600 million, of >>>which almost all comes from government funding. Perhaps they rely on alumni >>>contributions for 2/3 of their educational costs, but those are relatively >>>small compared to research. >> >>I called MIT to verify this interesting statistic. Here's a rough breakdown >>of the MIT FY 85 projections. >> >>$717.1 million for FYI 1985 cost (how much it costs to run things) >>$710.3 million rev (money coming in) >> >>Of that last figure: >>$102.1 million tuition >>$97.9 investment income, gifts, funds, etc. >>$25.9 million, dining, dorms, etc. >>485.4 million (sponsored reasearch, not all gov't) >> Of that 485.4 million: >> $225 million on campus research. >> 80% of which is government sponsored >> (DOE 55 million >> DO Heath & human services, 40 million >> DOD 38 million >> NSF 34 million >> industry 33.5 million) >> >> 260 million Lincoln Labs (off campus) >> 100% government spending >> >>The source was Mr. Charley Ball, Asst' director of the MIT news office, >> >>Lincoln labs is run by MIT under contract from the government, but is not >>a "part" of MIT. It's not on campus, as Mr. Ball puts it. >> >>Including Lincoln Labs, we have: (0.8 * 225 + 260)/717.1 = 62% paid >>for by the Feds. >> >>Excluding Lincoln Labs (after all, that money is not going to >>support MIT proper but Lincoln Labs, a research establishment of the >>government) we have: >> >> 225/(717.1 - 260) = 49.2% >> >>This will certainly make me view with great interest future claims >>by Larry that this or that is "almost all" supported by government. > > >If you include GSL and Pell Grants and ROTC, the number is certainly greater >than 50%. > Given that those need only amount to 0.8% of revenues, I wouldn't be at all surprised. But you didn't SAY "more than 50% of revenues were from the government. What you SAID was: >>>I don't know about the others, but MIT total budget is around $600 >>>million, of which almost all comes from government funding. In short, Larry, you published as unqualified fact something quite untrue. Sorry to rub your nose in it, but this sort of misinformation in support of governments is part of what makes me demand a rigorous demonstration ("rigorous proof" is certainly too much to demand) from those who would tax, enslave, war, and control. From those who simply propose to leave me alone, *I* am content to demand a less strenuous proof, because they are not asking me to put myself at their service. >>> >>>Not to mention GSL, and Pell grants, and ROTC scholarships. >>> >> >>Agreed, the government does these things -- but in the "I take your >>money and do what I want" scenario, I can also give some of your money >>to freezing little match girls, or use it to send friends of mine to >>schools. Just because I do SOME good things with your money doesn't >>excuse the fact that I stole it. > >This is just falling back on your bogus circular definition of theft. > I was just pointing out that because the government does SOME good things with the money it has, er, "appropriated", it doesn't follow that it has done as much good as would have been done by leaving the money in place, and that simply pointing out some good things doesn't imply that the total of those good things is greater than the good things done by people on their own. >> >> <the example of the English Enclosure Laws> >> >> >>Excuse me, but I'd like a little more evidence, please, that the folks >>at the manor had to be forced to go to the city. The way *I* heard it >>was that they went to the city because of superior opportunities there. >>Of course, one may argue that certain aspects of life were better >>on the manor, but it flies in the face of the fact that the people from >>the farms evaluated things differently (else they'd have stayed on >>the manors). Of course if the legitimate OWNERS of the manors kicked them >>off, then where's your kick? If I decide that "by almost any comparison", >>it's more pleasant to enslave you and live off your wages, you can >>legitimately argue that it is not the NUMBER of possible comparisons >>that matters, but their relative validity. > >Well, what do you mean the "legitimate owners" These "legitimate" owners were >the royalty and nobility of England, whose ancestors aquired the land via war >and conquest (i.e. "stealing" it). Hmmm.... A valid point. I certainly don't propose to defend the distribution of land in England at that point. You are squirming, though -- if you deny the legitimacy of governments to issue titles and recognize and defend land rights, you've certainly opted for a very libertarian society in some ways. Nope, you can't have it both ways. Either well-established governments (like that of England at the time of the Enclosure Laws may control resources such as land or they may not. If they may control such things, then what's your kick? They are doing what governments have always done, and if they do it by handing the power to nobles to do it, so what? It's still a government-sponsored operation. If, on the other hand, they HAD acted libertarian and divvied the land on the basis of claim and use, we STILL would have seen "younger sons" going to the city to take advantage of the greater opportunities there. >>>POINT: No economic system has ever existed in a vacuum. It is always the >>>result of certain power relations within a society. >> >>POINT: I'm not contesting that. An economic system must involve people, >>and people must have power relations. Your statement is (so far) nugatory. >> >>>There has never in history been anything like your mythical free market. >> >>Now, Larry, didn't you just get through implying that Great Briton >>WAS like this (although you had hold of the wrong end of things)? > >There has been no "natural" free market. They've always been creations of >govts. Is your life a "creature" of mine because I choose not to strangle you? >>>To create one, using the power of the state, would be just as arbitrary and >>>coercive and creating any other system. >> >>Tsk! Not so. To have a state which merely refrains from coercion except to >>prevent coercion is hardly as coercive as having a state that coerces >>regularly and arbitrarily. The US constitution places limits on the >>government's power to coerce (not very strong limits, but...) and hence is >>a less coercive document (when instituted) than, say, the Code Napoleon. > >Since property rights at the moment were at some point determined by coercion, >a laissez-faire government merely maintains, by way of force, the result of >previous injustice. > Tsk! Typically static statist thinking. In a free economy, a fortune grows only by continuing to please others. If you simply took a lot of money (silver ounces, say) out of circulation and sat on it, you'd drive up interest rates for those lenders who were not so foolish. They would prosper. Their clients would (on average) prosper. You would have the world's most uncomfortable expensive seat. A *much* more common pattern is to use a fortune to get in good with government, and then use the government to aid your fortune. It may be that the greatest personal fortune in all of history (that of Hugo Stinnes) was amassed in this way. Libertarians (me included) are proposing to make this sort of conduct impossible; to force the rich to earn their keep by pleasing us and each other by denying them the easier, symbiosis-with-government trick. If this involves leaving some illegitimately-rich people rich a little longer, well, tough. I don't know of ANYTHING that doesn't do that (short of Pushing the Button). >>>The relations of power in society >>>today have an historical basis in govt. interference. To withdraw the role of >>>the govt. now would simply institutionalize certain arbitrary inequalities that >>>exist today. >> >>Excuse me, but I doubt if that's true. It amounts to an acceptance of >>the notion that only the rich get richer, and that they >>don't sometimes get poorer. Simply not true. > >Sometimes they do, but it usually a surprise when it happens, even noteworthy. >Horatio Alger's do exist, and the stories of their very rare occurrences are >always widely publicized to maintain the myth of hard work and determination >being "all that it takes" Tsk! Open your 1985 Information Please Almanac to page 48, and look at the chart called "per capita personal income"(PCPI). You will find that the figure for the year 1967 (the reference date for CPI) is $3,167. If you then look at the CPI index on the previous page, you'll find: 1940 1967 1983 PCPI 593 3167 11675 ---- --- ---- ----- CPI 42.0 100 297.1 which comes to: 14.11 31.67 39.30 Certainly the "average fellow" is getting wealthier, but this doesn't prove much about the poor getting richer, does it (after all, this increase in wealth might be all going to the top). Well, Larry, pull out the ol' dog-eared copy of "Losing Ground" by Charles Murray, and look at page 65. You will notice a there a graph of "Percentage of persons living under the poverty line" vs year. The graph of "official poverty" from 1950-~1970 is pretty much steadily downward, showing about 30% below the poverty level in 1950 to about 13% in 1969 or so. What happens after that is for Murray to say, but the point is that poverty has also been on a pretty steady decline (or at least it was until fairly recently -- read the book). The point of all this is that it is NOT surprising when the poor get richer. It *IS* surprising when the poor become rich, but not when they simply become better off. In fact, it is surprising when they do not. So it is again untrue that it is "a surprise when it happens, even noteworthy". >>> In particular, the use of >>>>non-government-created money (such as gold) predates official money, >>>>with (so far as I know) the first government inflation being that of >>>>ancient Rome. >>> >>>Official money does not a govt. controlled economy make. (You seem to have >>>this fetish with money). >> >>It does if it's enforced by the state. In France, at one point, there was >>a death penalty for asking if you were to be paid in Silver or in paper money. >>If the state may issue unlimited paper money, and execute people for not >>taking it (for even ASKING about it) then you have a government controlled >>economy in the same way that if I can kill you for publishing something I >>don't like, we would then have a "Nat Howard" controlled press. > >This misses my point, which was that govt. controlled economies existed BEFORE >money. I agree with the above paragraph, govt. printing of money certainly is >a form of control. Perhaps. I invite you to establish such a claim -- it would be very difficult to show. At any rate I doubt very much we would see "government" and "money" as the same things that were their very early precursors, so the point may be moot. >>>How about govt. controlled agriculture in Egypt in >>>5000BC. >> >>How 'bout those Red Sox? (What you hear me saying is that you're wandering). >> > >Not at all. Egypt had the one of the first civilizations, and it was hardly a >free market. So? Does this mean there was no trade before Egypt? Difficult to believe. >>>In fact what differentiated "civilizations", in the early history of >>>man, from mere roaming nomads, was the use of some "authority" to control >>>agriculture (and thus commerce). >> >>True, but doesn't for a moment implied that government created commerce. It >>would be like saying that "Government invented hatred", or "Government >>created the you-cut-and-I'll-choose trick", or "Government created taking >>turns". Government may abet these things, but it's rather silly to think >>that government CREATED them. > >Of course there was small scale barter before govts. But because large scale >investment requires a *stable* environment, *IT* was impossible without >constraints on society. > By this logic, large-scale trade between nations is impossible. So why is it that we have this deficit with Japan? >>>>Government "controlled"? Why yes, that's quite true, but it doesn't >>>>explain why the Chinese starvation dropped when their government >>>>began allowing folks to sell crops privately. In short, you've confused >>>>"controlled", with "aided". >>> >>> >>>Non Sequitor (but what else is new). >> >>It's hardly a non sequitur. Your point was that government aids commerce, >>that government is RESPONSIBLE for commerce. It would follow that greater >>government involvement would mean better commerce, hence (and I'm assuming >>we agree that better commerce means more prosperity) more prosperity. > >Huh? Of course govt. interference doesn't *always* help commerce. It, >like any other planned endeavor, has to be done properly. Don't point out >only the failures. A good point. I admit my error. >>In China, it didn't happen this way, despite a very large degree of >>government control over commerce. In fact, the degree of prosperity went >>up when the Chinese government RELAXED its control, so I hand you >>a counterexample, not a non sequitur. >
nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/16/85)
>/* Written 7:09 pm Oct 10, 1985 by mmt@dciem in inmet:net.politics.t */ > >>>That is false. Wealth is created by the re-organization of things >>>(the reduction of entropy, if you like). Government most definitely >>>can aid in such organization. Whether it is the most efficient way >>>of doing so is a different story, but to regard government as only >>>a transfer medium for existing wealth is like seeing a painting as >>>a transfer medium for oil and pigment. >>> >> >>Whoa! Let's have some historical examples please, of a government that >>CREATED wealth. Granted that governments seldom actually started out >>to destroy wealth, I've never heard of one that actually engaged in >>NET creation of wealth (such a government would not need to tax people, >>as it would turn a profit). Localized increase of wealth is no trick at >>all for a government, but to call this "creation of wealth" >>amounts to assuming that the money in the tax-collector's coffers >>just "appears from nowhere". > >Whoa, indeed! You totally misunderstand the idea. I never said that >Governments CREATE wealth, just that the orgaization they provide assists >in the creation of wealth. Your question would be better phrased (and >just as unanswerable) if you said: Show examples of two societies >equivalent in natural resources, one of which was an anarchy and the >other having a government, in which the one with the government was >wealthier. In the absence of comparable societies, and in the absence >of any anarchies lasting more than a few weeks, no such tests can be >made. There were semi-anarchic societies that lasted hundreds of years. To name one, old Ireland, which the British had to conquer piecemeal because there was no central authority capable of surrendering. The largest social unit of import appears to have been about 80 people. In the absence of the side-by-side test (which, of course, is not possible to do with adequate control) one must deal with more difficult issues. Rather than try out both ways of using money (take it away and spend it, or let the owners spend it as they please), it seems worthwhile to ask people who wish to employ force to justify this use of force. Such uses have traditionally been justified on the grounds of "the common good". As one of the people who loses money to such schemes, it seems worthwhile to try and expose their errors, if any. One large error is to see what is obvious and overlook what is hidden. What is obvious is what the government does with that money. What is hidden is what people would have done with it. It's worthwhile to try to find out if there was really a net win here when the government spent our money. Is this so impossible to do? If so, it follows that it's ALSO impossible to show how large the win was. If it IS impossible to show this, then one should look with GREAT suspicion at those who propose to use force to extract money for a scheme that they THINK might make money, and demand a little more than enumeration of the obvious spending and neglect of forgone opportunities for the folks who would have had that money. >It seems obvious to me that the institutionalized means of >communication and organization provided by (yes!) the bureaucracy >assist greatly in developing both social and material organization. >In fact, a few months ago, libertarians were arguing strenuously that >such was the case (remember "no monoplies without governments to help?). Ho-hum. It isn't established that a greater degree of organization is better, or that larger organizations are better, for the society in which they exist. Hence the argument that government makes them possible or more likely is hardly a saving grace for government. >So, I argue not that Governments create wealth, but that their presence >assists in the creation of wealth, which is measured not in money >but in organization (i.e. reduction of entropy). To measure wealth >in money is to measure it not at all. To measure wealth in terms of degree of organization, as if that were a linear scale (or as if you were even capable of plotting points corresponding to actual governments on such a scale) is also to measure it at all. And now we're to the meat of the matter. Surely if we are to measure wealth we must do it in terms other than the number or size of bureaucracies in our society?
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/18/85)
[Excised from an incredibly long and poorly edited note....] In article <28200170@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: > Please bear in mind that the forces of freedom from government don't > propose to break down anyones door, send your young men off to war > unwillingly, or tell you what to do with your life, but the forces > FOR government have, at one time or another claimed that these things > were necessary to pay "the price of civilization". Right. Instead, your forces of freedom from government is proposing to throw away our current system of keeping people from breaking down our doors for an untried and probably impractical one. The systems can't coexist: the current one depends on being the only one. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/18/85)
[ Mike Huybensz :...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh] > In article <28200170@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: > > Please bear in mind that the forces of freedom from government don't > > propose to break down anyones door, send your young men off to war > > unwillingly, or tell you what to do with your life, but the forces > > FOR government have, at one time or another claimed that these things > > were necessary to pay "the price of civilization". > > Right. Instead, your forces of freedom from government is proposing to > throw away our current system of keeping people from breaking down our > doors for an untried and probably impractical one. The systems can't > coexist: the current one depends on being the only one. Right question, wrong answer. This test of (temporary) coexistence *is* all-important for a new social order proposal. As the International goes (a socialist anthem; I'm translating from another language, not having the English text): We will destroy the whole world of coercion Down to the ground, and then We will build our world, a new one. He who was nothing, will be all. It has been tried, and the results are well known. On the other hand, I see nothing in libertarian proposals that cannot be introduced incrementally, and tried, and tested without prejudging the next step. Every deregulation , each Civil Service staff reduction is a libertarian reform. Libertarian systems aplenty exist right now, and coexist with coercive ones. I challenge you to name *one* government service that couldn't be phased out gradually, provided (I don't prejudge this) alternative systems are successful. E.g., from courts to arbitration (like People's Court), from police to Guardian Angels. Again: don't knock these alternatives, that's not the point. The point is gradualism and coexistence. Jan Wasilewsky Jan Wasilewsky
mwm@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) (10/19/85)
In article <786@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >In article <28200170@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: >> Please bear in mind that the forces of freedom from government don't >> propose to break down anyones door, send your young men off to war >> unwillingly, or tell you what to do with your life, but the forces >> FOR government have, at one time or another claimed that these things >> were necessary to pay "the price of civilization". > >Right. Instead, your forces of freedom from government is proposing to >throw away our current system of keeping people from breaking down our >doors for an untried and probably impractical one. The systems can't >coexist: the current one depends on being the only one. >-- > >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh Mike, please notice that not all libertarians propose not having a state-run police force. Since that's the only part of the current system actively engaged in keeping people from breaking down our doors, your conclusion doesn't follow. <mike
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (10/20/85)
[L. Kolodney] >>POINT: No economic system has ever existed in a vacuum. It is >>always the result of certain power relations within a society. >> >>There has never in history been anything like your mythical free >>market. To create one, using the power of the state, would be just >>as arbitrary and coercive and creating any other system. The >>relations of power in society today have an historical basis in >>govt. interference. To withdraw the role of the govt. now would >>simply institutionalize certain arbitrary inequalities that exist >>today. > > [B. Gamble] >Let me try to understand this. If we were to create a state which >enforced property rights and voluntary contracts, and stayed out of >our lives otherwise, that this would be just as coercive as creating >any other system? The logic is lost on me. Insofar as I detect any logic in this exchange, Larry Kolodney appears to maintain that the existence of the free market we all know and love depends on an arbitrarily and unjustly coercive state in order to come into existence and to continue in existence, and Bruce Gamble objects that a minimal state would not be as coercive as other systems and would presumably be more just than the alternatives. I think the objection misses a crucial point. A minimal state "enforces property rights and voluntary contracts, and stays out of our lives otherwise." But what KIND of property rights? And who determines who owns what? Property rights, you know, are not written on a golden tablet in the heavens for all to see. They are created and revised by societies, as when slavery was abolished in the US. So you must specify which kind of property rights this minimal state will enforce, and you must further explain how it will be determined who has just title to any given unit of wealth. For instance, if J.B. Moneyswine inherited his vast fortune from his grandfather who made his fortune through lying, cheating, stealing, etc., does he get to keep his fortune? If not, who does it go to? I suspect that libertarians are talking about *capitalist* property rights. When libertarians describe their utopia as something like "an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all," I say Hurrah, that sounds like something out of the *Communist Manifesto* (it is). But then they go on to say they want capitalist property rights to hold sway in this utopia. At that point I part company with them, for I don't believe this is compatible with their goal. To many of them the possibility doesn't appear to occur that this particular form of property rights may institutionalize injustice, which I believe was the point Larry was trying to make. In particular, a working class is essential to capitalism, and the modern working classes were created through massive coercion and fraud (enclosure acts, etc.). Perhaps it will be objected that however the working class was created, it provides security for its members, and people may have a preference for security over risk-taking. Whether or not this is true, let us note that this is the classic justification of slavery, and I believe of serfdom and despotic governments as well. [Nat Howard] >>>Excuse me, but I doubt if that's true. It amounts to an acceptance of >>>the notion that only the rich get richer, and that they >>>don't sometimes get poorer. Simply not true. >... >Well, Larry, pull out the ol' dog-eared copy of "Losing Ground" by >Charles Murray, and look at page 65. You will notice a there a graph >of "Percentage of persons living under the poverty line" vs year. >The graph of "official poverty" from 1950-~1970 is pretty much >steadily downward, showing about 30% below the poverty level in 1950 >to about 13% in 1969 or so. What happens after that is for >Murray to say, but the point is that poverty has also been on a pretty >steady decline (or at least it was until fairly recently -- read the >book). > >The point of all this is that it is NOT surprising when the poor >get richer. It *IS* surprising when the poor become rich, but >not when they simply become better off. In fact, it is surprising >when they do not. So it is again untrue that it is "a surprise when >it happens, even noteworthy". So there is some upward mobility. This totally fails to address the issue of whether there is any systematic exploitation going on. I thought this was the issue Larry was raising when he wrote about the free market perpetuating injustice. Why not read something by, say, Douglass C. North and learn something about economic history, Nat, instead of singing the same old "The Only Good Government Is A Dead Government" song and only looking for evidence that fits this preconceived notion? I've already agreed that governments have done and continue to do a great deal of harm, and I've also pointed out some benefits of the state including making economic growth possible through establishing efficient property rights and providing economies of scale for a society. Your objection that these benefits require a world government is a non sequitur if I've ever seen one. >>>In China, it didn't happen this way, despite a very large degree of >>>government control over commerce. In fact, the degree of prosperity went >>>up when the Chinese government RELAXED its control, so I hand you >>>a counterexample, not a non sequitur. I wish someone would be specific about what has happened in China's economy, and what has permitted the relative economic prosperity China has experienced since the revolution (no famine, population coming under control, etc.). If I were writing on the wondrous benefits of capitalism, China is not the country I would choose for an example. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/21/85)
>/* Written 6:07 pm Oct 17, 1985 by mrh@cybvax0 in inmet:net.politics.t */ >In article <28200170@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: >> Please bear in mind that the forces of freedom from government don't >> propose to break down anyones door, send your young men off to war >> unwillingly, or tell you what to do with your life, but the forces >> FOR government have, at one time or another claimed that these things >> were necessary to pay "the price of civilization". > >Right. Instead, your forces of freedom from government is proposing to >throw away our current system of keeping people from breaking down our >doors for an untried and probably impractical one. The systems can't >coexist: the current one depends on being the only one. It's odd to hear Mike Huybensz toeing the conservative line, but I find it encouraging (in an odd way). Mike: the notion that the "current system of keeping people from breaking down our doors" depends on being the only one is unsupported, irrelevant, muddleheaded, and wrong. Unsupported: (so far, anyhow). Simply saying: "it's there, it works", says nothing about the validity of other systems, particularly (as Jan points out) when the first steps towards libertarian society are so simple and incremental. Irrelevant: if it DOES depend on being the only method, it doesn't follow that a new method cannot replace it cleanly. Muddleheaded: it also doesn't follow that a conversion to yet another method that was easy to convert to, but didn't depend upon being the only one, and was easy to convert FROM does not exist (for example, a voucher system like that proposed for "public" education). Wrong: the FBI, the state cops, and the city police (not to mention a private guard service) might all fulfill this function, depending on the criminal's motivation. You wish to argue that they are all part of the same system? Fine: I argue that they are all part of the laws of physics in operation; and I do not propose to step outside THAT system.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/23/85)
>/* Written 8:31 pm Oct 19, 1985 by carnes@gargoyle in inmet:net.politics.t */ >[L. Kolodney] >>>POINT: No economic system has ever existed in a vacuum. It is >>>always the result of certain power relations within a society. >>> >>>There has never in history been anything like your mythical free >>>market. To create one, using the power of the state, would be just >>>as arbitrary and coercive and creating any other system. The >>>relations of power in society today have an historical basis in >>>govt. interference. To withdraw the role of the govt. now would >>>simply institutionalize certain arbitrary inequalities that exist >>>today. >> >> [B. Gamble] >>Let me try to understand this. If we were to create a state which >>enforced property rights and voluntary contracts, and stayed out of >>our lives otherwise, that this would be just as coercive as creating >>any other system? The logic is lost on me. > >Insofar as I detect any logic in this exchange, Larry Kolodney >appears to maintain that the existence of the free market we all know >and love depends on an arbitrarily and unjustly coercive state in >order to come into existence and to continue in existence, and Bruce >Gamble objects that a minimal state would not be as coercive as other >systems and would presumably be more just than the alternatives. > >I think the objection misses a crucial point. A minimal state >"enforces property rights and voluntary contracts, and stays out of >our lives otherwise." But what KIND of property rights? And who >determines who owns what? Property rights, you know, are not written >on a golden tablet in the heavens for all to see. They are >created and revised by societies, as when slavery was abolished in the >US. So you must specify which kind of property rights this minimal >state will enforce, and you must further explain how it will be >determined who has just title to any given unit of wealth. Really? Here on netnews? Let me see if I understand what you're asking: you're asking for a simple (got to fit in the netnews size limits) complete (otherwise it's just an invitation for sniping) Rigid, (otherwise we'll hear Torek's cry of "where's the consistency?") but flexible (otherwise we'll hear arguments about "circumstances alter cases" and impracticality) rule for assigning property in a libertarian society, is that correct? If so, try this: property is yours which you claim, build, and use without employing force or fraud. Take it as given that you own your own body once you declare independence from your parents. In the case of *in situ* resources such as land or mineral rights, the requirement for building is relaxed, but the requirement for use is strengthened. You are free to give your property away, or to make agreements with others regarding its use. To the extent you initiate force or fraud to obtain property, you fail to obtain ownership of the property. Now, a couple of pre-emptions: 1. This definition is not perfect. Libertarians, as I've told you and others, are *NOT* promising utopia, or even expecting it secretly. There would clearly be disputes, just as there are in anything except a complete dictatorship, over how the rules are to be applied. 2. This definition is meant to answer your requirement that libertarians come forth with some sort of method of assigning property, *BUT I AM NOT THE ONLY LIBERTARIAN*, so there is lots of room for argument among libertarians about it. This is a Good Thing. 3. This definition is based roughly on the Rothbardian version of libertarianism, with which I am noddingly familiar. Those more deeply imbued should feel free to correct me. 4. This definition does not represent a lifelong principle, and I feel free to change it as flaws are found, but it does represent how I feel about this issue now. >For >instance, if J.B. Moneyswine inherited his vast fortune from his >grandfather who made his fortune through lying, cheating, stealing, >etc., does he get to keep his fortune? If not, who does it go to? Let me see here. Moneyswine got his fortune on the basis of past injustice, so *HE* didn't have the right to it. On the other hand, Moneyswine's grandson was given it fairly (he didn't swindle Moneyswine himself out of it), so should Junior have the rights to the wealth? Is this a big deal, Richard? Moneyswine didn't own the stuff Junior inherited (the money was force-or-fraud money) ****BUT**** your example depends for its interest on a semantic trick which I must now expose. You say that Moneyswine "made his fortune through lying, cheating, stealing, etc.". Does that mean that Moneyswine was convicted in court of doing such things? Clearly not -- he still has the money. (if you object, by the way that the court might be rigged, you're right -- we'll get back to that) So implicit in your example is the notion that Moneyswine, although he may have cheated, stolen, bribed, and corrupted, has NOT BEEN CONVICTED IN LAW of such things. Interestingly, any property which you own now depends upon such a claim. Ditto for any property I own. In short, Richard, any property anywhere depends for its legal legitimacy upon the absence of a successful legal challenge. It seems necessary to keep saying it: libertarians are not promising utopia, not even to themselves. If your objection comes down to the notion that the court may have been rigged, you are absolutely right to object that Libertaria would not be perfect in this way, but neither, my dear fellow, would socialism, nor any other sort of system one may guess at in which human beings are used as judges. So the short answer to your question, Moneyswine the grandson (call him Junior) gets to keep the ill-gotten gains unless courts take the i-gg's away from him. Does he have the MORAL right to the i-gg's? Of course not! But this is Libertaria, not Utopia, not in any sense a "paradise". In the case of a non-systemic breakdown in the justice system, one may certainly hope that Libertaria is better at addressing the task of redress than other systems, but to hold up the example of a crooked or mistaken court as an example of Libertaria's ills is a little silly: the objection applies much more strongly to Socialism, where more different aspects of one's life are determined by possibly mistaken or corrupt outside authorities. >I suspect that libertarians are talking about *capitalist* property >rights. When libertarians describe their utopia as something like >"an association in which the free development of each is the >condition for the free development of all," I say Hurrah, that sounds >like something out of the *Communist Manifesto* (it is). But then >they go on to say they want capitalist property rights to hold sway >in this utopia. In two sentences, you've used the word "utopia" twice. This is more often both in density per sentence and in absolute number (!), I believe, than any libertarian has used it to apply to Libertaria. In short, Richard: STRAW MEN! Libertarians don't promise you Utopia (at least, none I've read do) and it's just silly of you to poke holes in Libertaria on the basis that it is NOT utopia. >At that point I part company with them, for I don't >believe this is compatible with their goal. Our goal? Utopia again? >To many of them the >possibility doesn't appear to occur that this particular form of >property rights may institutionalize injustice, which I believe was >the point Larry was trying to make. Try this, then: Libertaria seems to us to be LESS liable to institutionalize injustice because it minimizes the primary mechanism for systematic injustice while rewarding just behavior. >In particular, a working class >is essential to capitalism, and the modern working classes were >created through massive coercion and fraud (enclosure acts, etc.). Let's not blur any distinctions, or gloss over any conceivable crime of the capitalists. WHAT fraud? Also, who is pressing the legal claim of the working class to their rights to become tenant farmers again? I've heard it argued that when you give up a court case, or when you give up pressing your claim, you give up the claim. Why? Because if you didn't, you could always press the claim again, regardless of whether you had benefited short-term from concessions made by the person your claim is against. >Perhaps it will be objected that however the working class was >created, it provides security for its members, and people may have a >preference for security over risk-taking. Whether or not this is >true, let us note that this is the classic justification of slavery, >and I believe of serfdom and despotic governments as well. How amusing! It's one of the great claims of socialism that it provides security for its citizens. What's wrong, Richard? Don't like it if capitalism makes it too? >[Nat Howard] >>>>Excuse me, but I doubt if that's true. It amounts to an acceptance of >>>>the notion that only the rich get richer, and that they >>>>don't sometimes get poorer. Simply not true. >>... >>Well, Larry, pull out the ol' dog-eared copy of "Losing Ground" by >>Charles Murray, and look at page 65. You will notice a there a graph >>of "Percentage of persons living under the poverty line" vs year. >>The graph of "official poverty" from 1950-~1970 is pretty much >>steadily downward, showing about 30% below the poverty level in 1950 >>to about 13% in 1969 or so. What happens after that is for >>Murray to say, but the point is that poverty has also been on a pretty >>steady decline (or at least it was until fairly recently -- read the >>book). >> >>The point of all this is that it is NOT surprising when the poor >>get richer. It *IS* surprising when the poor become rich, but >>not when they simply become better off. In fact, it is surprising >>when they do not. So it is again untrue that it is "a surprise when >>it happens, even noteworthy". > >So there is some upward mobility. No, Richard, let's make it clear. There was systematic, widespread, NET upward mobility. That is, a lowering of the poverty rate. Got that? Not just "some upward mobility", but a NET upward movement. >This totally fails to address the >issue of whether there is any systematic exploitation going on. I >thought this was the issue Larry was raising when he wrote about >the free market perpetuating injustice. Excuse me, but libertarians don't object to "exploitation", merely to initiation of force or fraud. I also "totally fail to address the issue of whether there is any" increase in religion among the poor. Why? Because the issue is not whether the poor are being exploited or converted, but whether their lot is, as Larry and others would have you believe, steadily worsening under a free economy. If I understood Larry correctly (and no doubt he'll point it out if I didn't) his argument was that imposition of a free market at any moment would institutionalize whatever inequities existed at that moment. My response to this charge is that "imposition" of a free market tends to erode all entrenched fortunes better than does (say) imposition of socialism. Why? Because while socialism changes the rules, so that it may result in the destruction of many old fortunes, it tends to make economics more responsive to political requirements. This means that fortunes (whether in terms of capital or in terms of power) become institutions DEFENDED by the state, rather than simply tolerated by the state. I remind you both that the choice is not between corrupt libertarianism and ideal socialism, but between human and flawed implementations of them both. >Why not read something by, say, Douglass C. North and learn something >about economic history, Nat, instead of singing the same old "The >Only Good Government Is A Dead Government" song and only looking for >evidence that fits this preconceived notion? I'll remember the name. Is this one of the people who tried to argue that one outcome of free market forces was monopolies? >I've already agreed >that governments have done and continue to do a great deal of harm, >and I've also pointed out some benefits of the state including making >economic growth possible through establishing efficient property >rights and providing economies of scale for a society. Your >objection that these benefits require a world government is a non >sequitur if I've ever seen one. Oh really? And here I thought I was responding to Larry Kolodney, who summarized his position as "... my claim that non-trivial economies couldn't exist without government". He also succinctly, if not too nicely, summarizes my retort as follows: "I was then told that there was a world economy, but no world government, so there." You will note only a tenuous relationship between what you claim (that I objected that [ efficient property rights and economies of scale ] requires a world government, and what I said, that there IS a thriving world economy, even though there is no world government. In short, Richard, you are barking up the wrong tree. Larry's claim is that that governments were a necessary condition for a significant economy, my retort was that there's a counterexample. In short, we have here a riddle: "what's the difference between Richard Carnes and a builder of Straw Men?" >>>>In China, it didn't happen this way, despite a very large degree of >>>>government control over commerce. In fact, the degree of prosperity went >>>>up when the Chinese government RELAXED its control, so I hand you >>>>a counterexample, not a non sequitur. > >I wish someone would be specific about what has happened in China's >economy, and what has permitted the relative economic prosperity >China has experienced since the revolution (no famine, population >coming under control, etc.). What an intriguing idea! No famine, since the Revolution? Are you willing to apologize to us all if I find references showing China appealed to the world for food since then? >If I were writing on the wondrous >benefits of capitalism, China is not the country I would choose for >an example. You might if the famines of the 1960's ended only AFTER farmers were permitted to sell a certain percentage of their goods at prices of their choosing.....
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/23/85)
In article <28200180@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > On the other hand, I see nothing in libertarian proposals > that cannot be introduced incrementally, and tried, and tested > without prejudging the next step. Anything can be introduced incrementally, without prejudging the next step. For example, elimination of civil rights. Let's start by removing them from those who espouse libertarianism. What? You don't like that idea? Why not? It's incremental, and you must be prejudging. Even incremental changes rock the current social order, and there are classes that will benefit and suffer for those changes. Your task is too persuade enough of us that your proposed changes will better our circumstances. That's where libertarianism usually falls on its face: it holds promise of betterment to those who are already well to do, by removing limitations (taxes, regulations, etc.) on their power and influence. The rest of us who benefit from tax-financed services and protection of laws and regulations see questionable advantage. > Every deregulation , > each Civil Service staff reduction is a libertarian reform. If you mean consistent with libertarian thought, fine. If you mean to claim some sort of responsability, I'd argue. However it's obvious that not every reduction is beneficial, and thus every l;ibertarian reform is not beneficial. If the social worker who was fired had the job of detecting fraudulent claims for social security, and saved more money than his salary by his work, then it is not cost effective to fire him. This is a clear example of where a gradual "libertarian" (by your claim) reform is not beneficial to anyone except the class of welfare cheats, and certainly not to libertarians. > Libertarian systems aplenty exist right now, and coexist > with coercive ones. "Libertarian" only if you relax the definition enough to include anything normal people call free market. Tell me about libertarian systems of government, the ultimate goal on your agenda (I presume-- please correct me if I am wrong.) > I challenge you to name *one* government > service that couldn't be phased out gradually, provided > (I don't prejudge this) alternative systems are successful. > E.g., from courts to arbitration (like People's Court), > from police to Guardian Angels. Again: don't knock these > alternatives, that's not the point. The point is gradualism > and coexistence. No, I won't knock alternatives, gradualism, or coexistence. All are fine and groovy. The point is that for the alternatives to be successful, they MUST be competitive. And the most basic competition is in coercive power. Libertarians want the slow, namby-pamby market forces to be the predominant coercive power maintained by positive feedback. But market forces are orders of magnitude slower than political organizations such as nations and businesses, and can easily be disrupted by physical coercion. So one government service that cannot be phased out is dominance. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/23/85)
In article <28200183@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: > >/* Written 6:07 pm Oct 17, 1985 by mrh@cybvax0 in inmet:net.politics.t */ > >Instead, your forces of freedom from government is proposing to > >throw away our current system of keeping people from breaking down our > >doors for an untried and probably impractical one. The systems can't > >coexist: the current one depends on being the only one. > > It's odd to hear Mike Huybensz toeing the conservative line, but I find > it encouraging (in an odd way). Arguments on the net don't present a good picture of the eclecticism of our thoughts: instead they tend to highlight the controversial. > Mike: the notion that the "current system of keeping people from breaking > down our doors" depends on being the only one is unsupported, irrelevant, > muddleheaded, and wrong. > > Unsupported: (so far, anyhow). Simply saying: "it's there, it works", > says nothing about the validity of other systems, particularly (as > Jan points out) when the first steps towards libertarian society are so > simple and incremental. Other systems certainly might be valid: but you have not made an argument addressing my claim that our system depends on being the only one. In other words, you're yelling "unsupported" and following with a non-sequiteur. > Irrelevant: if it DOES depend on being the only method, it doesn't follow > that a new method cannot replace it cleanly. Not irrelevant. It means that because they cannot coexist, the replacement process must be abrupt, not gradual. It is difficult to perform "clean" abrupt replacements of social mechanisms. > Muddleheaded: it also doesn't follow that a conversion to yet another > method that was easy to convert to, but didn't depend upon being the > only one, and was easy to convert FROM does not exist (for example, > a voucher system like that proposed for "public" education). Speak for yourself. You've selected an example that NEVER depended on being the only system. Private education has always existed in the US, that public education has partially supplanted. Not to mention your sentence is atrocious. You must have a secret hankering to write undeciperable regulations for a government agency. :-) > Wrong: the FBI, the state cops, and the city police (not to mention a > private guard service) might all fulfill this function, depending on > the criminal's motivation. You wish to argue that they are all part of > the same system? Fine: I argue that they are all part of the laws of > physics in operation; and I do not propose to step outside THAT system. If they are part of the same enforcement system, then you haven't shown me to be wrong. Your final sentence is a classic fallacy: it's analogous to the following example. There is a siamese fighting fish in a sealed bowl which will not tolerate any other in the bowl. You claim that because they are all part of the laws of physics (and you aren't going to go outside of those laws) that when you put your libertarian fish in the bowl they won't fight? Get real. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/24/85)
[Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes] > I wish someone would be specific about what has happened in China's > economy, and what has permitted the relative economic prosperity > China has experienced since the revolution (no famine, population > coming under control, etc.). The following is from "China, Alive in a Bitter Sea", by Fox Butterfield, Bantam Books, p. 15. > > For recent Western Studies show that food consumption per capita > > is actually only about what it was in the mid-1950s, and, more > > surprisingly, no better than in the 1930s, before World War Two. > > > > These studies suggest that the average daily calorie supply in > > China is between 2,000 and 2,100 per person. Two thousand > > calories a day is the level of India, 2,100 is the norm in Pakis- > > tan. Americans eat an average of 3,240 calories a day. > > > > But what makes these figures worse is that three fourths of the > > protein in the Chinese diet and five sixth of the calories are > > derived from food grains like rice, wheat and corn, rather than > > from other richer and more varied sources like meat, fish, eggs, > > vegetables, or sugar. In Asia only Bangladesh and Laos approach > > these proportions. BANGLADESH AND LAOS, Richard. Bangladesh and Laos. > > Uneven distribution has compounded this shortage of food. A Com- > > munist periodical in Hong Kong disclosed in 1978, while I was > > there, that the annual grain ration of 200 million Chinese > > peasants was less than 330 pounds a year. "That is to say", the > > journal said, "they are living in a state of semistarvation". Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/25/85)
[ the usual odd-even quoting conventions apply ] [Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh] > > > Right. Instead, your forces of freedom from government is proposing to > > > throw away our current system of keeping people from breaking down our > > > doors for an untried and probably impractical one. The systems can't > > > coexist: the current one depends on being the only one. > > Right question, wrong answer. This test of (temporary) coexistence > > *is* all-important for a new social order proposal. > > [And the libertarian proposals pass it]: ... > > On the other hand, I see nothing in libertarian proposals > > that cannot be introduced incrementally, and tried, and tested > > without prejudging the next step. > > [Explanation why I think so] >[Mike again] > Anything can be introduced incrementally, without prejudging the next > step. For example, elimination of civil rights. Let's start by removing > them from those who espouse libertarianism. > [A list of other allegedly non-beneficial incremental changes]. Apparently you missed the logical structure of my argument . (I am not saying it is your fault, perhaps I didn't make it clear). Let me try again. I was not proving here that libertarianism is right, or that all arguments against it are wrong. I was proving it of one argument only, yours, quoted above. You say: the systems can't coexist. I say: yes, they can, e.g. People's Court (a libertarian system) coexists with other courts. Since one example does not prove it, I challenged you to offer a contrary example. The test of gradualism and the test of coexistence are one and the same. If new ways are incrementally introduced, they coexist with old ways. Let us take your example above, depriving libertarians of civil rights. Since this is not incremental enough for my taste, let us assume they are deprived of one right only, say, posting to the net. Is it a Good Thing ? Not in my opinion. Does it involve coexistence of new and old social order ? Obviously: full rights for most people and most rights for some people coexist with denial of some rights to some people. Is this less dangerous than going the whole hog at once ? You bet. In the hypothetical situation, the missing right would be quickly restored through the activities of liberta- rians off the net and of fair-minded non-libertarians off and on the net. Not all programs and theories of social change possess this pro- perty: that they can be phased in, introduced without first breaking up the old social order. E.g., Bernstein's revisionist Marxism did, while Lenin's brand didn't. Trotsky went further in this direction than Bukharin, as he thought it a necessary precondition to eliminate all alternatives *globally* (world revolution). Owen's socialism passed the test, Babeuf's didn't. Usually, bottom-up, grass roots programs are gradualist, top-down, centralist ones aren't. Now, can you imagine a *centralist* libertarianism ? You need this guarantee of gradualism and coexistence *especially* for those changes that may not be, in your opinion, beneficial. Let us apply the test of coexistence directly to the law and ord- er problems in the context of which you made your incorrect but thought-provoking statement. I repeat the quote: > > > Right. Instead, your forces of freedom from government is proposing to > > > throw away our current system of keeping people from breaking down our > > > doors for an untried and probably impractical one. The systems can't > > > coexist: the current one depends on being the only one. Not only they can, but they do coexist. Some people hire body- guards or protection agencies. Other people create neighborhood patrols. Still other people rely on their firearms or judo skills. Others on mechanical gadgets. All these are libertarian systems of keeping people from breaking the doors. How good they are, is beside the point. If indeed the "current one" (and I presume you are not speaking of these other current ones) depend- ed on being the only one *it would not exist right now*. > Even incremental changes rock the current social order, and there > are classes that will benefit and suffer for those changes. The second part of this sentence is irrelevant to the argument. As for rocking the boat, sure, but incremental changes rock it slightly, so it does not capsize. > No, I won't knock alternatives, gradualism, or coexistence. All > are fine and groovy. The point is that for the alternatives to be > successful, they MUST be competitive. And the most basic competi- > tion is in coercive power. Sure, if they cannot compete they won't succeed. And if we haven't burnt (or capsized) our boats, we can, after an experiment, stick with the old, cozy, coercive system. So why worry ? > Libertarians want the slow, namby-pamby market forces to be the > predominant coercive power maintained by positive feedback. But > market forces are orders of magnitude slower than political or- > ganizations such as nations and businesses, and can easily be > disrupted by physical coercion. So one government service that > cannot be phased out is dominance. I asked for an example of what cannot be phased out *assuming* the alternative works as well or better. Since you refuse to make the assumption, you cannot deny my conditional statement. As for *your* point above, tell me why the following does not make as much sense, and of the same kind of sense. ] Democrats want the slow, namby-pamby constitutional forces to be the ] predominant coercive power maintained by citizen participation. But ] constitutional forces are orders of magnitude slower than direct action ] organizations such as police and stormtroopers, and can easily be ] disrupted by physical coercion. So one government service that ] cannot be phased out is arbitrary violence. Jan Wasileswsky
nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/25/85)
>/* Written 1:51 pm Oct 23, 1985 by mrh@cybvax0 in inmet:net.politics.t */ >In article <28200183@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: >> >/* Written 6:07 pm Oct 17, 1985 by mrh@cybvax0 in inmet:net.politics.t */ >> >Instead, your forces of freedom from government is proposing to >> >throw away our current system of keeping people from breaking down our >> >doors for an untried and probably impractical one. The systems can't >> >coexist: the current one depends on being the only one. >... >> Mike: the notion that the "current system of keeping people from breaking >> down our doors" depends on being the only one is unsupported, irrelevant, >> muddleheaded, and wrong. >> >> Unsupported: (so far, anyhow). Simply saying: "it's there, it works", >> says nothing about the validity of other systems, particularly (as >> Jan points out) when the first steps towards libertarian society are so >> simple and incremental. > >Other systems certainly might be valid: but you have not made an argument >addressing my claim that our system depends on being the only one. In other >words, you're yelling "unsupported" and following with a non-sequiteur. The paragraph was meant to juxtapose two facts: 1. You have stated that our system of keeping folks from breaking down our doors depends on being the only one (a so-far unsupported statement) and 2. (anticipating your argument) that our current system might work to a certain degree does NOT imply that it is "the only one" (because of point 1.) Clearer now? This is hardly a non-sequitur. >> Irrelevant: if it DOES depend on being the only method, it doesn't follow >> that a new method cannot replace it cleanly. > >Not irrelevant. It means that because they cannot coexist, the replacement >process must be abrupt, not gradual. It is difficult to perform "clean" >abrupt replacements of social mechanisms. Excuse me, but this is just plain silly. One needn't suddenly change the method of "door preservation" in order to change it. Presumably the actual method is evolving all the time, and evolutionary steps that led it to tolerate other door-preserving methods are certainly plausible (for example, there is a town right now that hire their police through private agency, in effect they hire a police agency rather than having their own police force). >> Muddleheaded: it also doesn't follow that a conversion to yet another >> method that was easy to convert to, but didn't depend upon being the >> only one, and was easy to convert FROM does not exist (for example, >> a voucher system like that proposed for "public" education). > >Speak for yourself. You've selected an example that NEVER depended on >being the only system. Private education has always existed in the US, >that public education has partially supplanted. I've suggested as an ILLUSTRATION the METHOD used in supplying another "public good". Nowhere (I hope) do I suggest that the voucher system had to supplant a universally public-school system. My point was that in the case of public schools supplanting private ones, the voucher system provides a way for a marketplace to resume. I'm not implying that a voucher system was ALL that had to be done to introduce private law-enforcement, merely that the mechanism had worked elsewhere and was encouraging. >Not to mention your sentence is atrocious. You must have a secret >hankering to write undeciperable regulations for a government agency. :-) It was a little involved. Sorry about that. Thanks for the effort that must have gone into understanding it. In a similar vein, I take it you have the contract for spelling words like "undecipherable" and "non-sequitur" :-) >> Wrong: the FBI, the state cops, and the city police (not to mention a >> private guard service) might all fulfill this function, depending on >> the criminal's motivation. You wish to argue that they are all part of >> the same system? Fine: I argue that they are all part of the laws of >> physics in operation; and I do not propose to step outside THAT system. > >If they are part of the same enforcement system, then you haven't shown me >to be wrong. If they WERE part of the same enforcement system, they'd cooperate fully. Your local police would have access to FBI files, and there would be no possibility of jurisdictional disputes. In fact, the FBI limits access to those files, the IRS tried and failed at least once to get hold of Ohio Motor Vehicle records (this from insider info, sorry, no references). You will also note that New Hampshire police are not noted for their cooperation with Mass. police regarding the enforcement of Mass's Sales and Use Tax. > Your final sentence is a classic fallacy: it's analogous to >the following example. Okay, Mike, who gives the orders to the State troopers, to the Pinkerton Guards, to FBI field men, to the Guardian Angels? What COMMON authority controls them all? >[siamese fish analogy] Not at all. I'm pointing out that what you're calling our current system is in fact quite varied, and not all under one authority, so it's hard to tell whether we really have "one system", except for purposes of discussion.
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/26/85)
In article <28200221@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > > > > Right. Instead, your forces of freedom from government is proposing to > > > > throw away our current system of keeping people from breaking down our > > > > doors for an untried and probably impractical one. The systems can't > > > > coexist: the current one depends on being the only one. > > I was not proving here that libertarianism is right, or that > all arguments against it are wrong. I was proving it of one > argument only, yours, quoted above. You say: the systems can't > coexist. I say: yes, they can, e.g. People's Court (a libertarian > system) coexists with other courts. Since one example does not > prove it, I challenged you to offer a contrary example. People's Court is as libertarian as motherhood is American. In other words, there are elements of systems (libertarianism in its various flavors and our current system) held in common. Perhaps what we really need at this point is a statement of qualitative differences between libertarianism and our current system. I'd prefer that you make it, lest someone like JoSH accuse me of pretending to understand libertarianism. Then we can discuss difficulty of coexistence and transitions on an agreed basis. > The test of gradualism and the test of coexistence are one and > the same. If new ways are incrementally introduced, they > coexist with old ways. Unless positive feedback blows up the whole system. Consider the analogy of a room with an electric spark in it. If the atmosphere is entirely oxygen, it's stable. If it's entirely methane, it's also stable. If you gradually change from one to the other, BOOM! > > No, I won't knock alternatives, gradualism, or coexistence. All > > are fine and groovy. The point is that for the alternatives to be > > successful, they MUST be competitive. And the most basic competi- > > tion is in coercive power. > > Sure, if they cannot compete they won't succeed. And if we haven't > burnt (or capsized) our boats, we can, after an experiment, stick > with the old, cozy, coercive system. So why worry ? I worry because you seem so sure that we won't burn or capsize. See my analogy above. Coercive power is a very fundamental aspect of every social system. Playing with it is playing with fire. Right now our fire is nice and safe in a central stove where the combustion is well regulated, the heat is mostly radiated rather than up the chimmney, and the products of combustion are disposed of properly. The libertarian solution strikes me as analogous to heating with zillions of disposable lighters, and hoping they don't burn the house down, use up all the oxygen, ignite eachother, or get carried out the door by anyone who walks in. > > Libertarians want the slow, namby-pamby market forces to be the > > predominant coercive power maintained by positive feedback. But > > market forces are orders of magnitude slower than political or- > > ganizations such as nations and businesses, and can easily be > > disrupted by physical coercion. So one government service that > > cannot be phased out is dominance. > > I asked for an example of what cannot be phased out *assuming* > the alternative works as well or better. Since you refuse to make > the assumption, you cannot deny my conditional statement. I didn't refuse to make the assumption: I showed where in the phasing out the process fails due to positive feedback. Like my gas explosion analogy. Or, if you want another analogy, total disarmament will keep the peace better than our current state. But if we totally disarm nations before we disarm police, the police will take over. Etc. What do all these analogies prove? They certainly don't prove that you are wrong: but they do show falsehood in the assumption that gradual change between two states is always possible. When proposing a new kind of social organization, something that we really haven't seen in thousands of years of political history, one has to suspect that it wasn't implemented because of problems like instability of intermediate states. As technology and the social environment change, former impossibilities may become realizable, so we must keep open minds. But what I'd like to see from libertarians is not just an unreachable carrot on a stick, but an exploration of the routes to that carrot. Without those routes, I migth suspect that you are showing me the carrot to obtain the side effect of my pulling your cart. > As for *your* point above, tell me why the following does not > make as much sense, and of the same kind of sense. > > ] Democrats want the slow, namby-pamby constitutional forces to be the > ] predominant coercive power maintained by citizen participation. But > ] constitutional forces are orders of magnitude slower than direct action > ] organizations such as police and stormtroopers, and can easily be > ] disrupted by physical coercion. So one government service that > ] cannot be phased out is arbitrary violence. That's why the presidency was created, and that's how the presidency is used. The president can declare martial law in emergency. He is chief of the armed forces. Etc. That is why our democratic government can survive in an environment of direct-action organizations, because it hasn't thrown out its "birthright" of direct action. What is the libertarian alternative? -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (10/29/85)
In article <28200210@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: >I remind you both that the choice is not between corrupt libertarianism >and ideal socialism, but between human and flawed implementations of them >both. Fortunately, I don't have to choose between libertarianism and socialism at all. Both are incredibly stupid. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (10/29/85)
[Not food] In article <28200222@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: > I'm pointing out that what you're calling our current system >is in fact quite varied, and not all under one authority, so it's hard >to tell whether we really have "one system", except for purposes of >discussion. What makes our system a system is that those agencies in it mutually recognize each other's right to engage in coercion in certain realms, and do not recognize the right of those not in the system to engage in coercion. (To forestall possible criticism, it is not necessary that there be complete agreement on which agencies are permitted which actions. A broad consensus suffices.) (Note that under this interpretation, parents disciplining their children are acting as part of the government. This is stretching the usual meaning of government a bit, but I believe it is essentially accurate.) It would seem that under an anarchist libertarian system, anyone might legitimately decide to undertake coercion on any scale, if justified by a prior act of coercion on the part of those they are acting against. Such a system strikes me as incredibly unstable, mostly due to two factors: (1) disputes about whether an initial offense occurred (2) over-reaction to offenses This is the stuff of which generations-long feuds between clans are made of! About the best that could be hoped for coming out of such a situation is for a network of (police) agencies to come into existence, which do not permit new police agencies to operate unless assured of their reasonableness, and which eliminate or forcibly reorganize their own members when they stray. I have another name for such a network: a government. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/31/85)
[Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh] > Perhaps what we really need at this point is a statement of qualitative > differences between libertarianism and our current system. I'd prefer > that you make it, lest someone like JoSH accuse me of pretending to > understand libertarianism. Then we can discuss difficulty of > coexistence and transitions on an agreed basis. I would certainly defer to JoSH and several others on this net in the matter of the definition of libertarian society or system - my libertarian readings are few and new. Having said this, I have no objection to giving my own idea of it. First, by system, I meant a coherent set of parts intended for a common purpose. E.g., UNIX, or Dr X's system for winning at blackjack. A broader definition would be just a set of interacting parts, e.g. the Solar System; but I used the narrower one. (Of course, any other use of terms would do. Just as long as proper distinctions are made). Now, consider crime. The same person might rely for protection on (a) police; (b) friendly neighbors; (c) a trained dog. Togeth- er, they may give him a sense of security; but they are not one system, but three, independent of each other. The first one depends on the existence of state, and is, in that sense, not li- bertarian. The other two are. So this is my definition of a "li- bertarian system" (for this discussion) : its operation does not imply a government. Next let us define a libertarian society. It is one in which coer- cion by government is (a) at a minimum and (b) much less than now. Coercion is understood in the narrowest way, as use or threat of force. (a) defines minarchism: getting along with as little government as possible. If the minimum = 0, it becomes anarchism. If minimum >= what we have now, it is still minar- chism, but hardly libertarianism. Of course, the minimum may change with time. Many libertarians hope that, as new ways of doing without legalized force are discovered and tested, the minimum will tend to zero. If it does not, then even in the minarchist society, libertarian and non-libertarian systems will coexist. If it does, they will coexist during the transi- tion. In any case, there would be more "libertarian systems" and the others would be fewer or weaker, than now. But it is all one continuous spectrum. Now, to add some perspective, I will supplement the above minimal, least-common-denominator, view of libertarianism, with a maximalist and subjective one. Personally I would like to have a society where coercion in the broadest sense - understood as negative reinforcement - legalized or not - is at the minimum, preferably at zero. In my utopia, employees would not be fired (there would be no employees); children would not be punished (though there would be children); no one would so much as reproach another person. And, a fortiori, there would be no government. I have no intellectual opinion as to whether such perfection is likely (except that the future would surprise *all* of us), but the preference is quite sincere. Enough so that I have never accepted an administrative position, my children are never punished etc. (I apologize for this personal note, but pos- sibly understanding what makes people of different views tick, helps understand the views themselves). As for the original topic - dangers of transition - I've just posted a note labelled "Experimentation and Danger" which lists some possible libertarian reforms. Like any concrete proposals, they are likely to be vulnerable; but they might help focus the discussion. If so, help yourself. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/01/85)
[Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka] > Fortunately, I don't have to choose between libertarianism and socialism > at all. Both are incredibly stupid. Maybe not *choose* between them, but you have to *live* between them. They represent two directions on an axis. You can move this way, or that way, or stay put. You maintain that staying put is the only non-stupid choice. An oyster would agree. But look out for tides. Jan Wasilewsky
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (11/04/85)
Nat Howard, writing of property rights in Anarcholibertaria (a.k.a. Anarchocapitalistia): >... try this: property is yours which you claim, build, and use >without employing force or fraud. Take it as given that you own your >own body once you declare independence from your parents. Self-ownership, the view that each human being is the morally rightful owner of his own person and powers, is a highly debatable thesis. I haven't time to discuss it now; I will simply note that one of the battle lines is drawn here. >In the case >of *in situ* resources such as land or mineral rights, the >requirement for building is relaxed, but the requirement for use is >strengthened. You are free to give your property away, or to make >agreements with others regarding its use. To the extent you initiate >force or fraud to obtain property, you fail to obtain ownership of >the property. Do you obtain just ownership of (say) land even if your appropriation of it makes others, who are no longer at liberty to use the land, worse off than they would otherwise have been? Do you mean that mere use of a plot of land gives one just ownership (i.e., an exclusive right to its use) regardless of the effect of the exclusion on the people who now cannot use it, even if they do not now (after the appropriation) have enough land to provide a sustenance? Please clarify. >>For >>instance, if J.B. Moneyswine inherited his vast fortune from his >>grandfather who made his fortune through lying, cheating, stealing, >>etc., does he get to keep his fortune? If not, who does it go to? > >Let me see here. Moneyswine got his fortune on the basis of past >injustice, so *HE* didn't have the right to it. On the other hand, >Moneyswine's grandson was given it fairly (he didn't swindle >Moneyswine himself out of it), so should Junior have the rights to the >wealth? Is this a big deal, Richard? Moneyswine didn't own the stuff >Junior inherited (the money was force-or-fraud money) ****BUT**** >your example depends for its interest on a semantic trick which I must >now expose. > >You say that Moneyswine "made his fortune through lying, cheating, >stealing, etc.". Does that mean that Moneyswine was convicted in >court of doing such things? Clearly not -- he still has the money. >(if you object, by the way that the court might be rigged, you're >right -- we'll get back to that) So implicit in your example is the >notion that Moneyswine, although he may have cheated, stolen, bribed, >and corrupted, has NOT BEEN CONVICTED IN LAW of such things. > >Interestingly, any property which you own now depends upon such a >claim. Ditto for any property I own. In short, Richard, any >property anywhere depends for its legal legitimacy upon the absence >of a successful legal challenge. >[....] >So the short answer to your question, Moneyswine the grandson (call >him Junior) gets to keep the ill-gotten gains unless courts take the >i-gg's away from him. Does he have the MORAL right to the i-gg's? Of >course not! But this is Libertaria, not Utopia, not in any sense a >"paradise". Nat's argument seems to be that the only way a person could unjustly hold property in Libertaria is through imperfections in the judicial system, which I would certainly allow in socialism or any other proposed social system. But: my argument is not that Libertaria is imperfect in practice, like all other systems. My argument is that it permits systematic distributive injustice, i.e., it is *based on theft* (unjust appropriation). It is not a question of random imperfection, but of systematic blindness to questions about the moral legitimacy of certain kinds of private property. Nat does not state (at least in the quotation above) exactly how the courts ideally should define theft. But this is the whole crux of the matter. What exactly constitutes a just or unjust private appropriation of property? My argument is that the Libertarian courts, and Libertarians in general, would judge by a false standard. They permit the private ownership of WHAT NO ONE HAS A NATURAL RIGHT TO OWN PRIVATELY, namely the productive resources that we need to live. The ownership of these resources was originally acquired unjustly, by the theft of what was jointly owned (or perhaps owned by no one), and the (spurious) titles to these resources have been bequeathed or exchanged in the formally correct ways, down to Libertaria, which refuses to question these titles. For if indeed these titles were questioned, it would be bad news for the property-owning class. Hence I maintain that Libertaria is based on theft, or the ideologically motivated unwillingness to rectify past thefts. > Libertarians don't promise you Utopia >(at least, none I've read do) and it's just silly of you to poke holes >in Libertaria on the basis that it is NOT utopia. By utopia I mean "an impossibility," not "perfection." My use of the term was ironic. >Try this, then: Libertaria seems to us to be LESS liable to >institutionalize injustice because it minimizes the primary mechanism >for systematic injustice ... ...and for *rectifying* the systematic injustice of the past. > Also, who is pressing the legal claim >of the working class to their rights to become tenant farmers again? Why should they want to become tenant farmers, who were also exploited? >How amusing! It's one of the great claims of socialism that it >provides security for its citizens. But socialism, at least versions that I could accept, would allow individuals to express their preference and choose between taking risks and the security of the status quo, unlike slavery, where individuals are forcibly prevented from running away to take risks, and unlike capitalism, where many individuals do not own sufficient property to become risk-taking entrepreneurs. >Excuse me, but libertarians don't object to "exploitation", merely to >initiation of force or fraud. Well excuuuuuuse me. Is it really true that libertarians don't find exploitation objectionable, even some of the time, in some circumstances (I grant that sometimes it may not be morally objectionable)? This is not only going out on a limb, but sawing it off as well. This is fun, but I'll have to break off for now. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (11/04/85)
In article <28200246@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: >[Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka] >> Fortunately, I don't have to choose between libertarianism and socialism >> at all. Both are incredibly stupid. > >Maybe not *choose* between them, but you have to *live* between them. >They represent two directions on an axis. You can move this way, or >that way, or stay put. You maintain that staying put is the only >non-stupid choice. An oyster would agree. But look out for tides. > > Jan Wasilewsky There is a lot of room to move around without approaching either extreme. Nor is the axis truly one-dimensional. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) (11/06/85)
In article <233@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >Do you obtain just ownership of (say) land even if your appropriation >of it makes others, who are no longer at liberty to use the land, >worse off than they would otherwise have been? Do you have the right to stand undisturbed, even though I would like to swing my arms through the space you occupy, and I am thus discommoded by your existance? Of course you do--my right to swing ends where your nose begins. Rights of *any* kind are circumscriptions on the actions of others, and the others are thus "worse off than they would have been". >Nat's argument seems to be that the only way a person could unjustly >hold property in Libertaria is through imperfections in the judicial >system, which I would certainly allow in socialism or any other >proposed social system. But: my argument is not that Libertaria is >imperfect in practice, like all other systems. My argument is that >it permits systematic distributive injustice, i.e., it is *based on >theft* (unjust appropriation). It is not a question of random >imperfection, but of systematic blindness to questions about the >moral legitimacy of certain kinds of private property. Put simply, you don't believe in private property, so you object to any system based on it. This is a consistant position, but you are mostly wasting time debating particular points of the system. I personally believe that the market tends to redistribute property in a just way over time, so that if you were to hand property out completely at random, it would tend to approach a just distribution anyway. The reason is that people tend to use up resources, and thus large holdings tend to diminish; whereas people who are productive and frugal will amass wealth whether they had it or not at first. Since I *know* Richard disagrees with this definition of "just distribution" let me state a weaker version about which we can argue enlightenedly without merely screaming contradictory axioms: Given two different distributions of property (over the same population) A and B, over time subsequent distributions as determined by the market, A' and B', A'' and B'', ... A(n) and B(n), then A(n) and B(n) tend to approach each other, and do not continue to resemble A and B significantly. >But socialism, at least versions that I could accept, would allow >individuals to express their preference and choose between taking >risks and the security of the status quo, ... and eat their cake and have it? Sounds great, like a campaign promise, but if you really allow people to take risks *and get the consequenses*, you will *still* have paupers (having risked and lost) and capitalists (having risked and won). So let's see the details, please. --JoSH
mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) (11/09/85)
In article <233@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >What exactly constitutes a just or unjust private >appropriation of property? My argument is that the Libertarian >courts, and Libertarians in general, would judge by a false standard. >They permit the private ownership of WHAT NO ONE HAS A NATURAL RIGHT >TO OWN PRIVATELY, namely the productive resources that we need to >live. The ownership of these resources was originally acquired >unjustly, by the theft of what was jointly owned (or perhaps owned by >no one), and the (spurious) titles to these resources have been >bequeathed or exchanged in the formally correct ways, down to >Libertaria, which refuses to question these titles. For if indeed >these titles were questioned, it would be bad news for the >property-owning class. Hence I maintain that Libertaria is based on >theft, or the ideologically motivated unwillingness to rectify past >thefts. Gaining wealth from the state of nature requires human effort. Given this, is it not appropriate then that the person who puts forth this effort is granted ownership of that he was able to produce? A good example of this might be the Homestead acts of the US. In the Homestead acts if an individual was willing to work and live on the land granted for several years and make it productive , they then were given title to the land. Such a move certainly entailed a lot of hard work and risk for the individual. Are you saying that granting them this land was a "theft" from you and I? If so, please explain more clearly why you think that such individuals should be our slave. It is a pretty fundamental theorem of Welfare Economics that given any initial property endowments, eventually the property will be distributed to those who are most efficient. One can see this process continuing every day. Any firm that stops making a profit (producing social benefits better then their competitors) will go out of business and be replaced by someone who can. One hundred years ago, railroads were very rich and powerful companies, now look at them. Therefore even accepting your argument defining "theft" does not lead to your conclusion, since property endowments are not static and they will tend to optimal social benefit (a nice side benefit of individual freedom). -- Michael V. Stein Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services UUCP ihnp4!dicomed!meccts!mvs
markc@rosevax.UUCP (Mark Crist) (11/11/85)
> In article <28200246@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >[Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka] > >> Fortunately, I don't have to choose between libertarianism and socialism > >> at all. Both are incredibly stupid. > > > >Maybe not *choose* between them, but you have to *live* between them. > >They represent two directions on an axis. You can move this way, or > >that way, or stay put. You maintain that staying put is the only > >non-stupid choice. An oyster would agree. But look out for tides. > > > > Jan Wasilewsky > > There is a lot of room to move around without approaching either extreme. > Nor is the axis truly one-dimensional. > > Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka > Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108 *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
tedrick@ernie.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (11/21/85)
>It is a pretty fundamental theorem of Welfare Economics that given >any initial property endowments, eventually the property will >be distributed to those who are most efficient. One can >see this process continuing every day. Any firm that stops >making a profit (producing social benefits better then >their competitors) will go out of business and be replaced by someone >who can. The above is a nice model for certain purposes, but is too simplistic for others. For one thing, an individual with a relatively large amount of wealth can use this to further increase his share, even if he is less efficient than a poor individual. Efficiency in an individual is not static but varies with time. The model seems to assume some form of fairness governing the process of distributing wealth. If we are more realistic and assume that a certain amount of corruption exists, wealth will tend to accrue to not only the efficient producers, but also to the efficient criminals. The more wealth one has, the more power one has to manipulate and corrupt whatever system of regulation is in place. The assumption that making a profit=producing social benefits is not realistic in practice. For example, consider spillover costs. If an oil refinery can produce petroleum products more cheaply by polluting the environment the social costs of this pollution are not necessarily reflected in the profits. In general, the idea that a competitive market allocates resources well has a lot to be said for it, but the competition needs to occur within an overall framework of cooperation/regulation. Without this regulation what is to stop the competitors from lieing, cheating, stealing, destroying the environment, and killing each other? An unregulated market is really likely to result in concentration of wealth in the hands of the most efficient, clever, lucky, ruthless, brutal, unscrupulous, etc., individuals in the society. That is one reason why we have political systems, to protect some individuals in society from exploitation by others.
mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) (11/25/85)
I wrote >>It is a pretty fundamental theorem of Welfare Economics that given >>any initial property endowments, eventually the property will >>be distributed to those who are most efficient. In article <11047@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> tedrick@ernie.UUCP writes >The above is a nice model for certain purposes, but is too simplistic >for others. >The model seems to assume some form of fairness governing >the process of distributing wealth. If we are more realistic >and assume that a certain amount of corruption exists, wealth >will tend to accrue to not only the efficient producers, but >also to the efficient criminals. The more wealth one has, the >more power one has to manipulate and corrupt whatever system of >regulation is in place. The model assumes that there is a government that will enforce human rights (which of course include property rights). >The assumption that making a profit=producing social benefits >is not realistic in practice. For example, consider spillover >costs. If an oil refinery can produce petroleum products more >cheaply by polluting the environment the social costs of this >pollution are not necessarily reflected in the profits. Again you are only mentioning violations of property rights. (As has already been shown by others.) Naturally it is the job of the legal system to protect individuals from those who would violate their rights. >An unregulated market is really likely to result in concentration >of wealth in the hands of the most efficient, clever, lucky, ruthless, >brutal, unscrupulous, etc., individuals in the society. Laissez faire will lead to society being on the utility-possiblity curve. For this reason laissez faire is said to be efficient. I had hoped that a group called political theory wouldn't have to deal with concretes in the argument. Unfortunately this isn't the case I guess. Well then, if markets only lead to stagnation and concentration of wealth, consider this: Only two of the top ten corporations in 1909 were still in the top ten in 1958. Of the top 100 corporations in 1909 only 36 were left in 1958. The reason is simple, people who stop producing social benefits greater then their competiters will be out of business. The market is simply what results from the free choices by people free from government interference. For this reason Laissez Faire is more dynamic then any type of economy. -- Michael V. Stein Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services UUCP ihnp4!dicomed!meccts!mvs
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (12/05/85)
In article <275@meccts.UUCP> mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) writes: >>The model seems to assume some form of fairness governing >>the process of distributing wealth. If we are more realistic >>and assume that a certain amount of corruption exists, wealth >>will tend to accrue to not only the efficient producers, but >>also to the efficient criminals. The more wealth one has, the >>more power one has to manipulate and corrupt whatever system of >>regulation is in place. > >The model assumes that there is a government that will enforce human >rights (which of course include property rights). You can't just assume that there is a government that will enforce human rights. Like the man says, the more wealth one has, the more power one has to manipulate and corrupt whatever system of regulation is in place. That INCLUDES your government. >>The assumption that making a profit=producing social benefits >>is not realistic in practice. For example, consider spillover >>costs. If an oil refinery can produce petroleum products more >>cheaply by polluting the environment the social costs of this >>pollution are not necessarily reflected in the profits. > >Again you are only mentioning violations of property rights. (As has >already been shown by others.) Here we get closer to the real issues. It is impossible to do ANYTHING without polluting at least a little bit. Where do you draw the line? More to the point, HOW do you draw the line? I have yet to see a reasonable response to any of these questions from any libertarian. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (12/08/85)
>/* franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) / 5:16 pm Dec 4, 1985 */ > . . . It is impossible to do ANYTHING >without polluting at least a little bit. Where do you draw the line? >More to the point, HOW do you draw the line? I have yet to see a >reasonable response to any of these questions from any libertarian. >Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka This is not just a question for libertarians. Every society must draw the line somewhere between the extremes of allowing all pollution and eliminating all pollution causing production. It would appear that either extreme course would yield disasterous results. I don't have the answer to this question, but would also be interested in listening to anyone who believes they have it, from a libertarian perspective or otherwise. Michael Sykora
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (12/11/85)
In article <4340005@csd2.UUCP> sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) writes: >> . . . It is impossible to do ANYTHING >>without polluting at least a little bit. Where do you draw the line? >>More to the point, HOW do you draw the line? I have yet to see a >>reasonable response to any of these questions from any libertarian. >>[Me] > >This is not just a question for libertarians. Every society must draw >the line somewhere between the extremes of allowing all pollution >and eliminating all pollution causing production. It would appear that >either extreme course would yield disasterous results. > >I don't have the answer to this question, but would also be interested >in listening to anyone who believes they have it, from a libertarian >perspective or otherwise. I propose that it be handled by democratic political processes, as it is in the U.S., Europe, and Japan today. With notable success, I might add. The only really serious problems are those crossing national borders -- e.g., acid rain, which is disproportionately produced in the U.S., and lands in Canada. (With similar problems in Europe.) Likewise ocean pollution. The solution to that part of the problem is not the subject of this essay. The problem with this solution for the libertarians is that it requires a powerful central government, with the ability to collect taxes. I don't see any solutions which are compatible with libertarian ideas on government. (I do quibble with the details of how our government deals with the problem. Instead of regulations limiting the permitted pollutants, there should be taxes on the amount of pollutants emitted, with an effort made to match the tax to the costs imposed on others thereby -- this is hard to do when health and life are at stake, but not impossible. This would not diminish the need for a powerful central government.) Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (12/15/85)
>/* franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) / 11:42 pm Dec 10, 1985 */ >I propose that it be handled by democratic political processes, as it is >in the U.S., Europe, and Japan today. With notable success, I might add. You have not presented a solution, but rather described the means which you (and probably most of the rest of us) would like to see used to decide upon a solution. As for "notable success," how do you measure such success? Do you take into account the cost effectiveness of the means that have been chosen, as well as the oportunity cost of these measures? How do you know other means would not have been more successful? >The problem with this solution for the libertarians is that it requires >a powerful central government, with the ability to collect taxes. I >don't see any solutions which are compatible with libertarian ideas on >government. > >(I do quibble with the details of how our government deals with the problem. >Instead of regulations limiting the permitted pollutants, there should be >>taxes on the amount of pollutants emitted, with an effort made to match >the tax to the costs imposed on others thereby -- this is hard to do when >health and life are at stake, but not impossible. This would not diminish >the need for a powerful central government.) Libertarians are in favor of a government powerful enough to accomplish its legitimate role, but no more powerful than that. To speak of a "powerful" central government without a reference point that we all agree on is useless. The above measures may be consistent with libertarian philosophy to a significant extent. Libertarians would probably not call these taxes, but fines. >Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Michael Sykora
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (12/17/85)
In article <4340015@csd2.UUCP> sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) writes: >>/* franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) / 11:42 pm Dec 10, 1985 */ >>I propose that it be handled by democratic political processes, as it is >>in the U.S., Europe, and Japan today. With notable success, I might add. > >You have not presented a solution, but rather described the means >which you (and probably most of the rest of us) would like to see used >to decide upon a solution. Yes, but the result of the political process is not to produce *a* solution. It is to produce solutions to each case as it comes up. So in a real sense, the process *is* the solution. >As for "notable success," how do you measure such success? Do you take >into account the cost effectiveness of the means that have been chosen, >as well as the oportunity cost of these measures? How do you know >other means would not have been more successful? What other means? So far, the only other means even suggested is the exercize of the autocratic political process. This has been notably less successful. (Although this may be an artifact caused by their less developed economies.) One can only measure opportunity costs and cost effectiveness when there are alternatives. The success is measured by the fact that we have (1) kept pollution under control, while (2) retaining a strong and vital economy. This is crude, but it is the level of feedback available for most social policy questions. >>The problem with this solution for the libertarians is that it requires >>a powerful central government, with the ability to collect taxes. I >>don't see any solutions which are compatible with libertarian ideas on >>government. > >Libertarians are in favor of a government powerful enough to accomplish >its legitimate role, but no more powerful than that. To speak of a >"powerful" central government without a reference point that we all >agree on is useless. When you state it that way, it is a truism. "The government should be as powerful as it should be." A number of posters with Libertarian leanings have expressed their opinions about how powerful the govern- ment should be. None that I have seen favor a government as powerful as the one I propose. >>(I do quibble with the details of how our government deals with the problem. >>Instead of regulations limiting the permitted pollutants, there should be >>>taxes on the amount of pollutants emitted, with an effort made to match >>the tax to the costs imposed on others thereby -- this is hard to do when >>health and life are at stake, but not impossible. This would not diminish >>the need for a powerful central government.) > >The above measures may be consistent with libertarian philosophy to a >significant extent. Libertarians would probably not call these taxes, >but fines. Kind of in between. The purpose of taxes is to finance government activity (which on my theories should be directed toward maximizing the common good). The purpose of fines is to punish misdeeds, and thereby to deter further acts of the same type. The object here is not to punish, but to make the polluters pay the appropriate costs imposed by their actions. And, ideally, the money collected should be used to defray those costs for those on whom they are imposed, so they are intended in some sense to finance government activity. (Of course, all monies collected by the government are, in some sense, used to finance government activity.) Yes, I was aware that this proposal is quasi-libertarian. (It is not original with me, by the way, although I can't tell you where I got it from.) And I do not, in fact, think that such "taxes" or "fines" are always an adequate solution -- in some cases the government must outright forbid certain activities (because administration costs and/or technical problems make my preferred solution too costly); in others the cost of letting the pollution proceed without penalty is less than the cost of administering any sort of controls. So the government must have the right to intervene as it sees fit in any economic activity. (Of course I believe in checks and balances, and in principles to guide and limit such inter- vention.) But many of these principles are necessarily subject to political interpretation, because they are too vague to be completely formalized. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) (12/17/85)
> [ POSTINGS ON PROBLEM OF POLLUTION ] > > I propose that it be handled by democratic political processes, as it is > in the U.S., Europe, and Japan today. With notable success, I might add. > The only really serious problems are those crossing national borders -- > e.g., acid rain, which is disproportionately produced in the U.S., and > lands in Canada. (With similar problems in Europe.) Likewise ocean > pollution. The solution to that part of the problem is not the subject > of this essay. > > The problem with this solution for the libertarians is that it requires > a powerful central government, with the ability to collect taxes. I > don't see any solutions which are compatible with libertarian ideas on > government. > > (I do quibble with the details of how our government deals with the problem. > Instead of regulations limiting the permitted pollutants, there should be > taxes on the amount of pollutants emitted, with an effort made to match > the tax to the costs imposed on others thereby -- this is hard to do when > health and life are at stake, but not impossible. This would not diminish > the need for a powerful central government.) > > Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka I'm not sure if I'm in favour of the following, but it does show that regulation of pollution need not vastly increase government power. It bears some similarity to your above proposal: Have the government monitor the levels of pollution emitted by industry and (roughly) the geographic area affected. They require that industry buy a "license" to emit that much in that area. Licenses are auctioned to the highest bidder. The total number of licenses to, say, emit one tonne of nitrous oxide in Kentucky, is set by popular vote of the people of Kentucky. Now a critical point: The money from sale of these licenses is not kept by the government but distributed equally amongst the affected people. This prevents the income from increasing the size of the government, compensates the victims, and provides feedback on the appropriate number of licenses. This restricts the impact of pollution laws on government size to something comparable to the requirements for enforcing other laws. Radford Neal
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (12/22/85)
In article <4@calgary.UUCP> radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes: >> [ POSTINGS ON PROBLEM OF POLLUTION ] > >I'm not sure if I'm in favour of the following, but it does show that >regulation of pollution need not vastly increase government power. It >bears some similarity to your above proposal: > > Have the government monitor the levels of pollution emitted by > industry and (roughly) the geographic area affected. They require > that industry buy a "license" to emit that much in that area. > Licenses are auctioned to the highest bidder. The total number of > licenses to, say, emit one tonne of nitrous oxide in Kentucky, is > set by popular vote of the people of Kentucky. > > Now a critical point: The money from sale of these licenses is not > kept by the government but distributed equally amongst the affected > people. This prevents the income from increasing the size of the > government, compensates the victims, and provides feedback on the > appropriate number of licenses. > >This restricts the impact of pollution laws on government size to something >comparable to the requirements for enforcing other laws. I'm afraid this proposal is hopelessly naive. First of all, you can't solve the problem at the state level -- pollution doesn't respect state boundaries. Neither who produces a pollutant, what the effects are, nor who is affected to what extent are easy to measure. You seem to think that because you say the money raised is to be used to compensate victims, it will be. Actually, most of it will be eaten up by administrative expenses -- i.e., increasing the size of the government. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (12/24/85)
>/* franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) / 6:59 pm Dec 16, 1985 */ >Yes, but the result of the political process is not to produce *a* solution. >It is to produce solutions to each case as it comes up. So in a real sense, >the process *is* the solution. I don't believe anyone here advocates substituting another form of rule fo democracy. I thought what we were considering what would be the best general policies to come out of the system. The task for any system, democratic or otherwise, is to find the optimal solution, not merely to consider alternatives. >As for "notable success," how do you measure such success? Do you take >into account the cost effectiveness of the means that have been chosen, >as well as the oportunity cost of these measures? How do you know >other means would not have been more successful? >What other means? So far, the only other means even suggested is the >exercize of the autocratic political process. This has been notably >less successful. (Although this may be an artifact caused by their less >developed economies.) One can only measure opportunity costs and cost >effectiveness when there are alternatives. Again, I am talking about that set of policies that have been and are currently in place, not the method by which these policies were decided upon. >The success is measured by the fact that we have (1) kept pollution under >control, while (2) retaining a strong and vital economy. This is crude, >but it is the level of feedback available for most social policy questions. Without quantification, the above phrase seems virtually meaningless. Of course, it may be extremely difficult if not impossible to measure the costs and benefits of pollution policy accurately enough to yield useful information. >Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Michael Sykora
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (12/27/85)
In article <4340024@csd2.UUCP> sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) writes: >>/* franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) / 6:59 pm Dec 16, 1985 */ > >>Yes, but the result of the political process is not to produce *a* solution. >>It is to produce solutions to each case as it comes up. So in a real sense, >>the process *is* the solution. > >I don't believe anyone here advocates substituting another form of rule >fo democracy. I thought what we were considering what would be the best >general policies to come out of the system. The task for any system, >democratic or otherwise, is to find the optimal solution, not merely >to consider alternatives. I think there are those here who advocate getting rid of government entirely. This is not "substituting another form of rule for democracy", but it is getting rid of democracy. Your last sentence is nearly devoid of content. The way you find optimal solutions is to propose possible solutions (as many as you can think of), and choose the best one. >>What other means? So far, the only other means even suggested is the >>exercize of the autocratic political process. This has been notably >>less successful. (Although this may be an artifact caused by their less >>developed economies.) One can only measure opportunity costs and cost >>effectiveness when there are alternatives. > >Again, I am talking about that set of policies that have been and are >currently in place, not the method by which these policies were decided >upon. Again, what other means? What we have is a case by case imposition of prohibitions, limitations, and penalties. What alternative do you have to offer, and how does relate to libertarian principles? >>The success is measured by the fact that we have (1) kept pollution under >>control, while (2) retaining a strong and vital economy. This is crude, >>but it is the level of feedback available for most social policy questions. > >Without quantification, the above phrase seems virtually meaningless. >Of course, it may be extremely difficult if not impossible to measure >the costs and benefits of pollution policy accurately enough to yield >useful information. One can compare it to the hypothesized results of doing nothing; it is clear to me that we are a lot better off than we would be if the government had done nothing. In this sense, the policy has clearly been successful, without regard to how close to optimal it is. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (01/02/86)
>/* franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) / 7:50 am Dec 27, 1985 */ >Your last sentence is nearly devoid of content. The way you find optimal >solutions is to propose possible solutions (as many as you can think of), >and choose the best one. Right. It includes both the proposing and deciding. The output of the political process is determined by inputs to the system -- voting, lobbying, etc. -- as well as the mechanism that operates on these inputs. I am not recommending changing that mechanism, but rather some of the inputs. The political process most definitely is a feedback system. >One can compare it to the hypothesized results of doing nothing; it is clear >to me that we are a lot better off than we would be if the government had >done nothing. In this sense, the policy has clearly been successful, without >regard to how close to optimal it is. The success of the system must be measured against the criteria of what it was supposed to achieve. This criteria includes both explicitly stated goals as well as those negative goals, i.e., appropriate limits on the costs imposed by the system, that would have been explicit had the advocates of the system had the foresight or honesty to openly address them. >Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Mike Sykora