mwm@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) (10/26/85)
In article <1496@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes: >Right now, world government is a plutochracy. The courts and police are >controlled by them that gots. That is how it would be in libertaria as well. Right. This is a good reason for stripping the courts and police of much of their power (ditto for politicians - whom you forgot to mention). Can you describe a system where that isn't true, and won't become true as them that gots spend what they gots to make it become true? >But I must admit I overstated my case. TRADE does not require a government, >only people willing to exchange things. But there's more to an economy besides >trade, namely PRODUCTION. I would argue that PRODUCTION (and investment) >requires the stability provided by government. [Cheap shot coming, please excuse me :-] [Engage sanity check - cancel cheap shot. :-] Larry is backpedalling from his previous position that Government requires trade. He's found a worse position where he maintains that 1) Government implies stability. 2) Stability is required for production. If this were anybody but Larry (or a few others), I'd assume that "stability" mean "nobody stealing your means of production." But since it is who it is, I'm going to use "not readily changed or easily destroyed" (paraphrased from OAD). So, let's look at #1. Governments are neither necessary nor sufficient for stability. Consider the Louisiana Territory before the last wave of immigrants (whites) showed up. A very stable society, with little or no government above the intertribal level. Now, consider the same Territory after the US government has moved in to stabilize things. The buffalo die off, the people living on the land are thrown off, trees start growing in the Great Plains, etc. Most decidedly *not* stable. [Other examples of both cases provided for the asking.] Now, consider #2. Stability is *not* necessary for production. Just consider what production in the US did during the *very* unstable period from 1939 to 1945. In fact, production *implies* change. You've either got more of what you're producing, or (if this was a replacement), a *different* one (or more) of what you're producing. Ok, Larry, now tell us what you meant by "stability," and I'll do this again :-). <mike
lkk@teddy.UUCP (10/30/85)
In article <131@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@ucbopal.UUCP (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) writes: >In article <1496@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes: > >So, let's look at #1. Governments are neither necessary nor sufficient for >stability. Consider the Louisiana Territory before the last wave of >immigrants (whites) showed up. A very stable society, with little or no >government above the intertribal level. Now, consider the same Territory >after the US government has moved in to stabilize things. The buffalo die >off, the people living on the land are thrown off, trees start growing in >the Great Plains, etc. Most decidedly *not* stable. [Other examples of both >cases provided for the asking.] Right. When only Aborigines lived on the great plains, there was no need for a global government, becuase there was no global society. When the white men came and destroyed everything, this may have been bad for the Indian, but, in the long run, it was good for the white man, and led to the thriving economy that exists there now. > >Now, consider #2. Stability is *not* necessary for production. Just consider >what production in the US did during the *very* unstable period from 1939 to >1945. > What do you mean there was no stability? Sure things were relatively unstable, due to the war, but it was quite stable compared to a no government situation. The rule of law still applied, the government took great steps to insure that things remained stable during the war (preventing strikes, national economic planning, etc.). >In fact, production *implies* change. You've either got more of what you're >producing, or (if this was a replacement), a *different* one (or more) of >what you're producing. > You're confusing types of change. Government needn't prevent change to insure a stable FRAMEWORK. The government is like the operating system of a computer. Like Unix, most (all) are full of bugs, but wouldn't it be horrible there were NO operating systme, and each user simply had direct access to the computer hardware, with no tools, no protocol, no restrictions and no documentation? Unix doesn't prevent change, but it insures a stable framework for implementing it. >Ok, Larry, now tell us what you meant by "stability," and I'll do this again >:-). Stability means I can make an investment in a house (or business), for instance, and be relatively sure it won't be bulldozed over the next day by my neighbor. Stability means I can get a job, and not be fired from it arbitrarily (and if I do, that I won't starve). Stability means I will be protected from natural disasters (and medical ones). Stability means that my money will be accepted wherever I go. Stability means that my language will be understood wherever I go. Stability means I will not be captured by vigilantes (or foreign soldiers). Enough? Not every country implements all those stabilizing features, and that certainly isn't a complete list, but it makes the point. In order to build a rich and nurturing civilization, in which people are able to be more than mere animals, the builders of such need to stop having to worry about personal survival all of the time. Government allows them to do that. -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...{decvax | ihnp4!mit-eddie}!genrad!panda!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing. - Helen Keller
tedrick@ernie.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (11/01/85)
>> [ ... ] Governments are neither necessary nor sufficient for >>stability. Consider the Louisiana Territory before the last wave of >>immigrants (whites) showed up. A very stable society, with little or no >>government above the intertribal level. Now, consider the same Territory >>after the US government has moved in to stabilize things. [ ... ] >When the white men came and destroyed everything, this may have been >bad for the Indian, but, in the long run, it was good for the white >man, [ ... ] The long run isn't over yet. If the "white man" engages in a nuclear war it won't have been good for anyone ... (well maybe for the rats and cockroaches.) The "white man" could learn something from those he has conquered ...
michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (11/05/85)
[I don't believe in the Line Eater Monst..] > >When the white men came and destroyed everything, this may have been > >bad for the Indian, but, in the long run, it was good for the white > >man, ... [Larry Kolodney] > > The long run isn't over yet. If the "white man" engages in a > nuclear war it won't have been good for anyone ... (well maybe > for the rats and cockroaches.) > > The "white man" could learn something from those he has conquered ... > [Tom Tedrick] Learn what from them? I have great respect for the achievements of Native American peoples, but I don't recall that living peaceably alongside their neighbors was one of them. A number of the tribes that the "white man" displaced were *quite* warlike -- towards each other as well as the whites. So what are they to teach us regarding our present dilemma? Not to develop the knowledge of the universe that has given us our present capability to destroy each other? Sorry, Tom, but Native Americans down in Mexico were already well along the road to technical civilization that has led us inexorably to Hiroshima. Taken to its ultimate, such a "know nothing" philosophy would argue that we shouldn't have evolved into humans in the first place -- then we'd *really* be safe, right? Tell it to the dinosaurs, Tom! A better solution would be to *outgrow* this adolescent phase in our development as a rational species. No, I don't know how we are to do this -- but I suspect we must act a whole lot smarter, not dumber. -- Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation "All disclaimers including this one apply" (415) 960-9367 ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm And with an awful, dreadful list Towards other galaxies unknown Ponderously turns the Milky Way ... Boris Pasternak
mwm@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) (11/05/85)
To refresh your memory, the question at hand is: Does government provide stability, and is that stability necessary for production. To induce you to read, there's a discussion of government and a definition of a new government type at the end. In article <1542@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes: >> [ME] >>So, let's look at #1. Governments are neither necessary nor sufficient for >>stability. Consider the Louisiana Territory before the last wave of >>immigrants (whites) showed up. A very stable society, with little or no >>government above the intertribal level. Now, consider the same Territory >>after the US government has moved in to stabilize things. The buffalo die >>off, the people living on the land are thrown off, trees start growing in >>the Great Plains, etc. Most decidedly *not* stable. [Other examples of both >>cases provided for the asking.] > >Right. When only Aborigines lived on the great plains, there was no >need for a global government, becuase there was no global society. >When the white men came and destroyed everything, this may have been >bad for the Indian, but, in the long run, it was good for the white >man, and led to the thriving economy that exists there now. Granted, but not relevant. Government was not needed to provide the stability. Before you state it, I'll conceed that government is needed to provide stability (your definition, see below) to a society. >>Now, consider #2. Stability is *not* necessary for production. Just consider >>what production in the US did during the *very* unstable period from 1939 to >>1945. > >What do you mean there was no stability? From you own attempt to define stability by example: >Stability means I can make an investment in a house (or business), for >instance, and be relatively sure it won't be bulldozed over the next >day by my neighbor. Stability means I can get a job, and not be fired >from it arbitrarily (and if I do, that I won't starve). I notice you neglected to mention having your home made inaccessible by other means, whether it was destroyed or not. I don't know what the government did to the property it took from Japanese Americans during that period, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them were bulldozed over. Likewise for being fired arbitrarily (if firing you for your race isn't arbitrary, I don't know what is!). So, here we have a case of production in the face of government-caused instability. Best example to negate your argument (that governments cause stability which is required for production) that I could possibly have! >You're confusing types of change. Government needn't prevent change >to insure a stable FRAMEWORK. No, I'm working with the definition for stability from OAD, since you didn't provide one. You have, so I'll deal with that later. >The government is like the operating >system of a computer. Like Unix, most (all) are full of bugs, but >wouldn't it be horrible there were NO operating systme, and each user >simply had direct access to the computer hardware, with no tools, >no protocol, no restrictions and no documentation? You just described CP/M. There are probably more of those little beasts than Unix systems around. An inadequately managed Unix system is *much* worse than a well-managed CP/M system. [And all of this is completely off the topic. Sorry.] >Stability means I can make an investment in a house (or business), for >instance, and be relatively sure it won't be bulldozed over the next >day by my neighbor. Stability means I can get a job, and not be fired >from it arbitrarily (and if I do, that I won't starve). Stability >means I will be protected from natural disasters (and medical ones). >Stability means that my money will be accepted wherever I go. >Stability means that my language will be understood wherever I go. >Stability means I will not be captured by vigilantes (or foreign >soldiers). Enough? No. That's an attempt to define by example, and you left out something I consider very important: Stability means I can build (and not necessarily just material things) without having to worry about somebody taking it away from me. You've also got stuff I would call consistency (money & language) and security (disasters & unemployment). Though I agree that all of these are good things, it's not clear which of them should be the responsibility of the government. More on that later. Of course, the things on the list that you want people kept from doing to you have been done by governments to its citizens. You'd better quit claiming that governments provide stability if that's what you mean by stability. You can, of course, claim that governments *should* provide stability. >In order to >build a rich and nurturing civilization, in which people are able to >be more than mere animals, the builders of such need to >stop having to worry about personal survival all of the time. >Government allows them to do that. Horsefeathers. Government doesn't allow people to not worry about personal survival, technology does. Without the technology of agriculture, we're back to a hunter-gatherer society. Further advances in technology allow people to quit working on survival (spelled F O O D) and work on luxuries (housing, etc) or produce those luxuries more efficiently. Since one person can run a garden, you don't need government for agriculture. When you noted that during WW II, the US government insured that "the rule of law" still applied, you're getting close to what government must do. Government defines property rights, by deciding which rights it will protect. If it doesn't protect any rights, there are no property rights. This is why some government is necessary - somebody has to protect property rights, whatever those rights are. Any other situation is, as you yourself described it in another article: >Bingo! There is no world government, there are "the powers that be." >Since the world political situation is anarcho-libertarian, we have a >perfect example of what we might expect. A few strong nations >divide the world up into spheres of influence, most other nations are at >their mercy. To confess to a small lie - I'm not going to describe a new government type here, but provide a new term for an old one. What Larry calls "anarcho-libertarian" is (I assume) a state with no central government, but some general agreement about what property rights are and how they should be enforced. It also attempts to tie libertarianism up with anarchism, which is a false connection. Some libertarians may hold views resembling anarchism, and indeed may be anarchists, but that isn't true of all libertarians. I've been using the term "rationalized anarchy" to describe such a system. I prefer - I just don't think it will work. <mike
lkk@teddy.UUCP (11/05/85)
In article <141@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@ucbopal.UUCP (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) writes: >To refresh your memory, the question at hand is: Does government provide >stability, and is that stability necessary for production. To induce you to >read, there's a discussion of government and a definition of a new >government type at the end. > >In article <1542@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes: > >From you own attempt to define stability by example: > >>Stability means I can make an investment in a house (or business), for >>instance, and be relatively sure it won't be bulldozed over the next >>day by my neighbor. Stability means I can get a job, and not be fired >>from it arbitrarily (and if I do, that I won't starve). > >I notice you neglected to mention having your home made inaccessible by >other means, whether it was destroyed or not. I don't know what the >government did to the property it took from Japanese Americans during that >period, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them were bulldozed over. >Likewise for being fired arbitrarily (if firing you for your race isn't >arbitrary, I don't know what is!). > Please leave the poor strawmen alone. How many times must I repeat it, not all governments do their jobs (providing staability) well, and not all people reap the benefits of the government. Generally, governments provide a service for a CLIENT. Now I don't mean to say that the government acts like a contractor, with formal agreements, and taxes as a fee. There are people who "have a say" in how the government is run. In a dictatorship, this is generally limited to a tiny ruling class. In the U.S. the enfranchisement is broader, and most Americans are clients of the government to some extent (although some a certainly more "priveledged customers"). So in El Salvador, for instance, where the main clients are the plantations owners, they are the ones for whom stability is provided. THe peasants get treated like shit, but that is ok, as long as the the lifestyle of the elites is maintained. In the U.S. many interest groups are represented and catered to by the govt. However, when most of the clients decide that some of the clients need to be hurt for the common good, that can happen. Internment of the Japanese certainly was destabilizing for them, but it was percieved as a STABILITY measure for the country as a whole by those who implemented it. >So, here we have a case of production in the face of government-caused >instability. Best example to negate your argument (that governments cause >stability which is required for production) that I could possibly have! > The instability caused against the Japanese had a negligable effect on society as a whole. If there was a general impression that it could have happened to ANYONE, then you might have seen to backlash. >>The government is like the operating >>system of a computer. Like Unix, most (all) are full of bugs, but >>wouldn't it be horrible there were NO operating systme, and each user >>simply had direct access to the computer hardware, with no tools, >>no protocol, no restrictions and no documentation? > >You just described CP/M. There are probably more of those little beasts than >Unix systems around. An inadequately managed Unix system is *much* worse >than a well-managed CP/M system. [And all of this is completely off the >topic. Sorry.] CP/M is fine for single users machines. Similarly, libertarianism is great if you live in a vacuum. -- Sport Death, (USENET) ...{decvax | ihnp4!mit-eddie}!genrad!panda!lkk Larry Kolodney (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa -------- Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing. - Helen Keller
mwm@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) (11/08/85)
In article <1590@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes: >In article <141@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@ucbopal.UUCP (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) writes: >>To refresh your memory, the question at hand is: Does government provide >>stability, and is that stability necessary for production. > >Please leave the poor strawmen alone. How many times must I repeat >it, not all governments do their jobs (providing staability) well, and >not all people reap the benefits of the government. Larry, if you don't like people saying "government doesn't always," quit saying "government does" and start saying "government should" or "government can." BTW, that is the oddest way I've ever seen of conceding a debate. <mike