flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (08/05/85)
> ... Daniel K McKiernan has convinced me (by USPS mail) > that the externalities involved are too minor and to hard to identify to > justify a policy of subsidized education... > --Paul V Torek Since someone asked: the only serious externalities I could think of involved in education are those associated with research and invention. Education keeps people off welfare, but welfare wouldn't exist in a libertarian society, so that wouldn't apply in my antilibertarian argument. Education makes better voters, I think, but McKiernan disagreed (which shows, I guess, how subjective that judgement is); and besides, democracy wouldn't exist in Libertaria either (except in voluntary organizations). Education promotes research and invention, which in turn have positive effects on people not party to the relevant transactions. But only some types of education do that, and only indirectly. And subsidizing education in order to promote subsequent activities is bass-ackward; better to just subsidize research directly. And invention wouldn't have significant externalities in McKiernan's version of Libertaria, because they would be copyrighted and copyrights would *never expire*. One other way in which education of an individual might benefit the public at large is that it makes him less likely to turn criminal. But, again, this is only an INdirect effect; if we want to discourage crime, we can do that more directly. (Although, since deterrence is imperfect, there will still be some positive externality associated with education's effect in reducing crime). So that's why I've succumbed to the libertarian argument on education. OK, socialists and centrists, where did I go wrong? --Still the reluctant centrist, Paul V Torek, umcp-cs!flink
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (08/07/85)
> > ... Daniel K McKiernan has convinced me (by USPS mail) > > that the externalities involved are too minor and to hard to identify to > > justify a policy of subsidized education... > > --Paul V Torek > > Since someone asked: the only serious externalities I could think of > involved in education are those associated with research and invention. > Education keeps people off welfare, but welfare wouldn't exist in a > libertarian society, so that wouldn't apply in my antilibertarian argument. > Education makes better voters, I think, but McKiernan disagreed (which > shows, I guess, how subjective that judgement is); and besides, democracy > wouldn't exist in Libertaria either (except in voluntary organizations). > > Education promotes research and invention, which in turn have positive > effects on people not party to the relevant transactions. But only some > types of education do that, and only indirectly. And subsidizing education > in order to promote subsequent activities is bass-ackward; better to just > subsidize research directly. And invention wouldn't have significant > externalities in McKiernan's version of Libertaria, because they would be > copyrighted and copyrights would *never expire*. > > One other way in which education of an individual might benefit the public > at large is that it makes him less likely to turn criminal. But, again, > this is only an INdirect effect; if we want to discourage crime, we can > do that more directly. (Although, since deterrence is imperfect, there > will still be some positive externality associated with education's effect > in reducing crime). > > So that's why I've succumbed to the libertarian argument on education. > OK, socialists and centrists, where did I go wrong? > > --Still the reluctant centrist, Paul V Torek, umcp-cs!flink I find here very appealing vision: unemployed starve or hire themselves for pennys, criminals are shot, children of uneducated poor cannot afford education, criminals are shot (or banished), if somebody invents penicilyn, then for eternity he can charge whatever market can bear, etc. First problem: who enforces the law? Private agency? How about the competition? How assure that a private law enforcement agency uses fair practices to establish its fee structure (imagine Lebanese militias in this role? Perhaps hire another agency to shoot out the first one. Now, assume that law enforcement is public. That means that it belongs to the state, and is supported by taxes. But we have no democracy. Also, we (owners of education or property) must defend ourself agains voluntary organisations of poor and uneducated (they could turn, God forbid, democratic). Who, in absence of democracy should decide? Possibly, taxpayers, proportionally to the taxes paid. Conclusion: Libertaria is a police state governed by the rich. Advocating democracy there is in effect a conspiracy to deprive people of their full property rights; as such it is a crime. Uneducated poor cannot afford the market value of education, thus they remain (hereditiary) uneducated poor. It occurred to me that this is exactly what our net free-marketeers (and/or libertarians) have in mind. Of course, this is a logically coherent system. Do we really like it? I don't. Net.libertarians, please illuminate me where is the error here (if any). Piotr Berman
gabor@qantel.UUCP (Gabor Fencsik@ex2642) (08/07/85)
+----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Paul V Torek, following DKMcK's teachings, announces he is embracing | the libertarian position against subsidized education because | 'the externalities involved are too minor and hard to identify'. +----------------------------------------------------------------------- You do not state your criteria for deciding when subsidies are legitimate so it is hard to reconstruct the reasoning you are echoing here. I'll assume for the sake of argument that you support compulsory education at, say, the grade school level. [If not, please disregard the rest of this posting - but then you have to explain how illiterates will enter into the voluntary contracts that are the lifeblood of Libertaria.] So a child's compulsory education is now part of the cost of parenthood just as complying with the smog laws is part of the cost of owning a car in California. If I can't pay for installing the smog gizmo, I can't keep the car. What is the legal sanction against parents who are unable to pay for the legally required education? Fines? Jail? Impounding the kids? At this point I conclude that, at the minimum, school vouchers to cover elementary education are inevitable even in the most orthodox Libertaria. Universities and vocational schools are outside the scope of this argument. > Education makes better voters, I think, but McKiernan disagreed (which > shows, I guess, how subjective that judgement is); and besides, democracy > wouldn't exist in Libertaria either (except in voluntary organizations). I am speechless. Are you prepared to defend this piece of wisdom or do I have to seek enlightenment from DKMcK himself? ----- Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,nsc,hplabs,intelca}!qantel!gabor
josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) (08/07/85)
In article <1680@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: > I find here very appealing vision: unemployed starve or hire themselves >for pennys, ... [litany of Dickensian horrors] Why do you think that the centralized organization of illegitimate coercion, which is all that we're advocating the removal of, is the motive force behind social concern and compassion? I don't believe it. I believe that the amount of compassion is relatively orthogonal to these political questions, but that the wealth of a society determines the amount of activity and physical aid this compassion enables them actually to give. Thus a rich society is a better place to live, even if you are poor. > First problem: who enforces the law? Private agency? How about the >competition? The competition keeps the prices low, the laws fair, and the cops on the job. Unlike the present situation. >... Perhaps hire another agency to shoot out the first one. War is extremely expensive; it is almost never practiced except by those organizations who obtain their incomes by theft, such as governments and criminal gangs. >Now, assume that law enforcement is public. ... > Who, in absence of democracy should decide? I don't advocate this, but you'll find that the decisions in a "democracy" are made by a small group of bosses in a political hierarchy. The difference between a two-party "democracy" (USA) and a one-party "democracy" (USSR) is that here there are two sets of bosses who are chosen from more or less at random. >Conclusion: Libertaria is a police state governed by the rich. [etc] If I have two dollars and you have one dollar, I get two lollipops and you get one. If I have two votes and you have one, I get everything, and you get nothing. Sorry! > It occurred to me that this is exactly what our net free-marketeers >(and/or libertarians) have in mind. ... If you actually think this, you are remarkably close-minded. If, as I rather suspect, you really understand that we believe that everyone would be better off with the rights and principles we advocate, and you are merly throwing "cute" insults, shame on you. >Piotr Berman --JoSH
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (08/07/85)
In article <1110@umcp-cs.UUCP> version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site ubvax.UUCP version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP ubvax!cae780!amdcad!decwrl!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!flink flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) writes: >> ... Daniel K McKiernan has convinced me (by USPS mail) >> that the externalities involved are too minor and to hard to identify to >> justify a policy of subsidized education... >> --Paul V Torek > >Since someone asked: the only serious externalities I could think of >involved in education are those associated with research and invention. >Education keeps people off welfare, but welfare wouldn't exist in a >libertarian society, so that wouldn't apply in my antilibertarian argument. >Education makes better voters, I think, but McKiernan disagreed (which >shows, I guess, how subjective that judgement is); and besides, democracy >wouldn't exist in Libertaria either (except in voluntary organizations). > >Education promotes research and invention, which in turn have positive >effects on people not party to the relevant transactions. But only some >types of education do that, and only indirectly. And subsidizing education >in order to promote subsequent activities is bass-ackward; better to just >subsidize research directly. And invention wouldn't have significant >externalities in McKiernan's version of Libertaria, because they would be >copyrighted and copyrights would *never expire*. > >One other way in which education of an individual might benefit the public >at large is that it makes him less likely to turn criminal. But, again, >this is only an INdirect effect; if we want to discourage crime, we can >do that more directly. (Although, since deterrence is imperfect, there >will still be some positive externality associated with education's effect >in reducing crime). > >So that's why I've succumbed to the libertarian argument on education. >OK, socialists and centrists, where did I go wrong? > >--Still the reluctant centrist, Paul V Torek, umcp-cs!flink Nearly everywhere, Paul. First, you assume that direct means of discouraging social problems are superior [more effective, more humane, more honest, etc. -- perhaps] to indirect means, when historical evidence shows loads of cases where direct attack on social problems fails [Prohibition, for one example]. The statement that "if we want to discourage crime, we can do that more directly." is maybe not so. General, subsidized education shapes and defines a population by guaranteeing that members of that population share certain characteristics. Then problems which might be intractable given a population random in all dimensions might become tractable -- crime being probably the best case. Redefining the domain of a problem is a quintessentially indirect strategy. Second, instead of trying to put out a theory about what education does, Paul goes scattershot looking for externalities, a set whose relative completeness or incompleteness we have no way of judging. And there are causal connections which elude me entirely. For instance, I fail to see a link between education and invention. Many school systems today get attacked for stifling creativity; Einstein had to go to school in Switzerland before he could do well in school, for instance (AE had a German upbringing and schooling). And I fail to see a direct link between education and research (Of course, *I* would fail to see this, since my degree was in Sociology yet I do software engineering of a passable sort). Education does one massive thing that its lack or its privatization could not: it sets up people with credentials before they get their first job. Hence it permits a match between many different levels of jobs and many different levels of credentials. Hence it makes filling a job a manageable task for most jobs, by helping to ensure that the number of "qualified" applicants for a job match the number of jobs more or less. It also makes filling a job a less risky procedure, since applicants have accumulated a record which can be compared with other records even before the first job. If there is a link between education and research, it is the same as a link between education and plumbing, or education and secretarial skills, or education and teaching: education in each of these cases provides the credentials by which those who fill jobs in research or plumbing or secretarial skills or teaching can sort and evaluate applicants. A popular modern theory of education is that education sorts people by educational credentials, keeps accounting of these credentials, and helps to ensure that the supply of credentials more-or-less matches the demand for credentials by adjusting educational standards appropriately. Personally, I like this theory. I think it sums up all that education can be observed to do. Of course, the value of a credentialing system depends on the level of publicity, the level of enforcement, and the level of agreement on the value of particular credentials. Hence, since the best guarantor of publicity, enforcement, and agreement between credentials is a public regulatory authority, and because people outside the educational system disturb the system of credentials, the place for education is in the public sphere, and education should be subsidized and regulated by a public authority. Even in Libertaria. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw "And if you don't believe all the words I say, I'm certified prime by the USDA!"
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (08/09/85)
In article <3168@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: >In article <1680@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: >> I find here very appealing vision: unemployed starve or hire themselves >>for pennys, ... [litany of Dickensian horrors] > >Why do you think that the centralized organization of illegitimate >coercion, which is all that we're advocating the removal of, is the >motive force behind social concern and compassion? I don't believe it. > >I believe that the amount of compassion is relatively orthogonal to >these political questions, but that the wealth of a society determines >the amount of activity and physical aid this compassion enables them >actually to give. Thus a rich society is a better place to live, >even if you are poor. It's nice to know what you believe, Josh. But is it true that the poor and down-and-out do better from private charity than from the modern welfare state? Why should the abolition of "coercion" make people any more generous? Why should the absence of any health standards, for instance, which poor people should fulfill (food in the right quantities, minimum shelter, etc.) aid the poor in meeting these standards? These aren't questions of belief; the burden's on libertarians to prove these things (chuckle), not on the rest of us to take them for granted. >> First problem: who enforces the law? Private agency? How about the >>competition? > >The competition keeps the prices low, the laws fair, and the cops on the >job. Unlike the present situation. > >>... Perhaps hire another agency to shoot out the first one. > >War is extremely expensive; it is almost never practiced except by >those organizations who obtain their incomes by theft, such as >governments and criminal gangs. Not in Mad Max's world. Isn't libertaria more like that? Nobody regulating the gangs? In Mad Max's world, everybody knows how to use a gun ('cept for those helpless good folk...). Poor women who can't afford an agency had better watch out. And even then, they'd probably could only afford a crime deductable (i.e. the agency pledges to protect only after the first ten crimes ...). They would learn to adjust their expectations and live with this. >>Now, assume that law enforcement is public. ... >> Who, in absence of democracy should decide? > >I don't advocate this, but you'll find that the decisions in a >"democracy" are made by a small group of bosses in a political hierarchy. >The difference between a two-party "democracy" (USA) and a one-party >"democracy" (USSR) is that here there are two sets of bosses who are >chosen from more or less at random. There are other differences. Are none of these significant ones? > >>Conclusion: Libertaria is a police state governed by the rich. [etc] > >If I have two dollars and you have one dollar, I get two lollipops and >you get one. If I have two votes and you have one, I get everything, >and you get nothing. Sorry! > Show me a democracy like this, and I might believe you, Josh. At least I'd stop and think. >> It occurred to me that this is exactly what our net free-marketeers >>(and/or libertarians) have in mind. ... > >If you actually think this, you are remarkably close-minded. If, as >I rather suspect, you really understand that we believe that everyone >would be better off with the rights and principles we advocate, and >you are merly throwing "cute" insults, shame on you. > >>Piotr Berman > >--JoSH Josh! Give Piotr the benefit of the doubt, please. He had a problem. On the one hand, if he liked libertaria, what he suggests is precisely what he would have in mind -- that wow, he's rich, and nobody can tell him what to do. He thinks that if you were realistic and liked liber- taria, you would be as happy as he would be. Maybe he thinks that having a glowing, peaceful view of libertaria and being realistic are contradictory states, and he wants to retain his belief in your realism. I agree with Piotr. I'd rather believe in people than believe in libertaria anytime. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw "And if you don't believe all the things I say, I'm certified prime by the USDA!"
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (08/11/85)
In article <290@ubvax.UUCP> tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) writes: >Education does one massive thing that its lack or its privatization >could not: it sets up people with credentials before they get their >first job. Why couldn't private education do this? (By the way: I neglected to mention in my original article that I have in mind high scool and higher education, primarily. I support education of kiddies at the public's expense, at least for poor kids.) >If there is a link between education and research, it is the same >as a link between education and plumbing, or education and secretarial >skills, or education and teaching: education in each of these cases >provides the credentials [...] True, but we should subsidize education-that-qualifies-people-for-research because: If there are lots of scientists available, the price goes down, therefore more research is performed. And we want more research than would be produced in a laissez-faire situation, because research has positive externalities. However, the best way to promote research is probably to have the government hand out grants (like NSF does). If enough demand for research is created thereby, it is unnecessary to subsidize science education. Paul V Torek "We have no lifestyle"
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (08/12/85)
In article <1191@umcp-cs.UUCP> flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) writes: >In article <290@ubvax.UUCP> tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) writes: >>Education does one massive thing that its lack or its privatization >>could not: it sets up people with credentials before they get their >>first job. > >Why couldn't private education do this? (By the way: I neglected to >mention in my original article that I have in mind high scool and higher >education, primarily. I support education of kiddies at the public's >expense, at least for poor kids.) Depends what you call private education. "Pseudo" private education would be where every private system holds to the same or close to the same rules for awarding credentials; then it might as well be public for all the difference it makes. The Ivy Leagues, for instance, are classic "pseudo" private schools. But in Libertaria, it's easy to imagine public unity over the meaning of credentials breaking down from competition between private schools. At some threshold of disagreement over educational credentials, most such credentials will lose their value. For-profit technical and beauty schools already suffer this problem today. I would think that investing in private education in the absence of strong public standards would carry immense risks, since a huge investment would be demanded for credentials whose future value has no backing, hence is a dubious bet to estimate. Lots of people might cut their feared losses and drop out needlessly. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) (08/13/85)
In article <292@ubvax.UUCP> tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) writes: >In article <3168@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: >>In article <1680@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: >>> I find here very appealing vision: unemployed starve or hire themselves >>>for pennys, ... [litany of Dickensian horrors] >> >>Why do you think that the centralized organization of illegitimate >>coercion, which is all that we're advocating the removal of, is the >>motive force behind social concern and compassion? I don't believe it. >> >>I believe that the amount of compassion is relatively orthogonal to >>these political questions, but that the wealth of a society determines >>the amount of activity and physical aid this compassion enables them >>actually to give. Thus a rich society is a better place to live, >>even if you are poor. > >It's nice to know what you believe, Josh. But is it true that the poor >and down-and-out do better from private charity than from the modern >welfare state? Absolutely. The welfare mess consists primarily of disincentives to better oneself, and is one of the most degrading institutions encountered by most Americans. Statists like yourself, who want to reduce everybody to a kind of slavery to a massive bureaucracy, would naturally have a hard time understanding this. > Why should the abolition of "coercion" make people >any more generous? Can you read? Do you have any idea what the word "orthogonal" means? I have included the whole quote from my original message above, so that you could go over it again. Use a dictionary this time. > Why should the absence of any health standards, >for instance, which poor people should fulfill (food in the right >quantities, minimum shelter, etc.) aid the poor in meeting these >standards? For the same reason that minimum wage laws cause unemployment, not just temporarily but a whole class of the hard-core unemployed: You have cut off the bottom rungs of the ladder, on the theory that no one should be on the ground. >These aren't questions of belief; the burden's on libertarians to prove >these things (chuckle), not on the rest of us to take them for granted. This isn't a court case. If you are so enamored of the process of argumentation as to abandon the truth just because the libertarians won't play by your petty rules, you are to be pitied more than censured. Of course, the libertarians have explained the concepts and pointed to more voluminous documentary evidence time and again, and the Wuersches just keep whining, "Proof! We demand Proof!" >>> First problem: who enforces the law? Private agency? How about the >>>competition? >> >>The competition keeps the prices low, the laws fair, and the cops on the >>job. Unlike the present situation. >> >>>... Perhaps hire another agency to shoot out the first one. >> >>War is extremely expensive; it is almost never practiced except by >>those organizations who obtain their incomes by theft, such as >>governments and criminal gangs. > >Not in Mad Max's world. Isn't libertaria more like that? Nobody >regulating the gangs? In Mad Max's world, everybody knows how to use >a gun ('cept for those helpless good folk...). Now we know where Tony gets his models of social interaction and economic feasibility. (Of course, I'm sure that if he wrote a couple of papers about it, he could get a degree in Sociology or something...) >Poor women who can't afford an agency had better watch out. And even >then, they'd probably could only afford a crime deductable (i.e. the >agency pledges to protect only after the first ten crimes ...). They >would learn to adjust their expectations and live with this. --As opposed to the poor women living in Newark, NJ, and other such statist paradises, where crime is virtually unknown... Face it: police protection consists of a handful of very prosaic services: Street patrol; after-the-fact investigation of robberies; information collection and retrieval; and suspect apprehension and detention. There are private agencies that provide all of these services, and the price can be compared to existing police budgets: it ranges from one tenth to one half. Your poor woman pays through the nose for the existing (lousy) police protection, generally through property taxes as part of her rent. Even areas with rent control allow landlords to pass taxes straight through. >>>Conclusion: Libertaria is a police state governed by the rich. [etc] >> >>If I have two dollars and you have one dollar, I get two lollipops and >>you get one. If I have two votes and you have one, I get everything, >>and you get nothing. Sorry! > >Show me a democracy like this, and I might believe you, Josh. At least >I'd stop and think. My native democracy, Mississippi, was very much like that between 1900 and the mid '60's, when it was changed by forces beyond the control of the local majority. >>> It occurred to me that this is exactly what our net free-marketeers >>>(and/or libertarians) have in mind. ... >> >>If you actually think this, you are remarkably close-minded. If, as >>I rather suspect, you really understand that we believe that everyone >>would be better off with the rights and principles we advocate, and >>you are merly throwing "cute" insults, shame on you. >> >>>Piotr Berman >> >>--JoSH > >Josh! Give Piotr the benefit of the doubt, please. He had a problem. Well, I sure hope I've fixed it for him. >On the one hand, if he liked libertaria, what he suggests is precisely >what he would have in mind -- that wow, he's rich, and nobody can tell >him what to do. He thinks that if you were realistic and liked liber- >taria, you would be as happy as he would be. This is stupid and you know it. One likes libertarian ideals because they appeal to one's sense of fairness, justice, and the worth of individual human beings. One dislikes libertarian ideals because one is an elitist social engineer who likes to treat other people as parts in a social machine, or social doctor who wants to cure the ills of the social organism by treating people as cells therein. The libertarian sees people as individuals, with individual RIGHTS and concurrent responsibilities. The statist sees individuals merely as social units, as means to build his grand scheme and not ends in themselves. The libertarian likes his ideals because they appeal to his inner sense of moral rightness. >Maybe he thinks that having a glowing, peaceful view of libertaria and >being realistic are contradictory states, and he wants to retain his >belief in your realism. I fear you're putting words in Piotr's mouth he wouldn't agree with. I doubt that his original message was prompted by a concern over my own sense of realism. I suspect instead it was prompted by an urge to denounce what he (incorrectly) believed to be my (and others') motives. >I agree with Piotr. I'd rather believe in people than believe in >libertaria anytime. >Tony Wuersch You don't believe in people. You believe in the dehumanizing State. You believe in feeding people like animals in cages. You believe in denying them the economic rights they need to care for their own physical needs; and denying them the responsibilities to themselves and others, that they must have to develop into complete moral human beings. I believe in trading; you believe in stealing. I believe in cooperation; you believe in force. I believe in voluntarism; you believe in conscription. I believe in freedom; you believe in slavery. --JoSH
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (08/13/85)
JoSH sez: > Statists like yourself, who want to >reduce everybody to a kind of slavery to a massive bureaucracy, would >naturally have a hard time understanding this. [etc.] JoSH, this kind of comment is out of line. If you ever stopped sneering at socialists long enough to understand what we are saying, you might discover that we don't by any means deserve your contempt. Robert Nozick, at least, takes the writings of socialists seriously -- so should you. On the other hand, if we really don't have anything worthwhile to say, perhaps you should stick to moderating fa.poli-sci, a.k.a. *Libertarian Review*. Now that I am very old and wise, I understand that the best way to win people to my point of view is to try, as sympathetically as possible, to understand *their* point of view, and even to take into account the (extremely remote but conceivable) possibility that I may have something to learn from them, rather than to attribute to them disreputable motives. Richard Carnes
josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) (08/15/85)
In article <145@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >JoSH sez: >> Statists like yourself, who want to >>reduce everybody to a kind of slavery to a massive bureaucracy, would >>naturally have a hard time understanding this. [etc.] > >JoSH, this kind of comment is out of line. If you ever stopped >sneering at socialists long enough to understand what we are saying, >you might discover that we don't by any means deserve your contempt. This kind of comment is the meat and potatoes of netland rhetoric, and it is remarkably selective of you to pipe up when a libertarian does it but remain silent while yammerheads like sevener slop their copious rantings across the net. Besides, I was talking about Wuersch, a considerably less perspicuous fellow than yourself. >Robert Nozick, at least, takes the writings of socialists seriously >-- so should you. On the other hand, if we really don't have >anything worthwhile to say, perhaps you should stick to moderating >fa.poli-sci, a.k.a. *Libertarian Review*. I that particular message, I was trying to give you an insight into the moral and emotional underpinnings of libertarian thought--which had just been badly and somewhat maliciously misrepresented by Mr. Berman. (Why didn't you call Berman to task?) The basic justice of the libertarian ideas, our insistence that people be treated as human beings individually and not a collective mass, is a point that as far as I can tell is completely missed by socialists who attempt to grapple with libertarian thought. >Now that I am very old and wise, I understand that the best way to >win people to my point of view is to try, as sympathetically as >possible, to understand *their* point of view, and even to take into >account the (extremely remote but conceivable) possibility that I may >have something to learn from them, rather than to attribute to them >disreputable motives. >Richard Carnes This may come as a shock to you, but I flatter myself that I *do* understand the socialist point of view, and I can even tell you what is wrong with it in a very few words. Socialists view the people of the world, and their economic interactions, as a great machine or system, and see things that are wrong, and want to fix them. (Please note that I'm assuming here that the socialists are both well-intentioned *and* competent!) Now when you go to fix a machine, there are two points to the process that I must point out. First, you change parts or modify the design of the machine without any consideration for the well-being of the parts in and of themselves, but only to make sure they properly serve the function they were intended for. If they are misshapen you throw them away. (Consider the purges that are a hallmark of the nations that embrace Marxism thoroughgoingly.) Libertarians believe that consideration of the individual is foremost, that the rights of people are primary and those of groups only derivative. Secondly, consider the relationship between the mechanic and the machine. The mechanic has the say; the machine just sits there and gets operated on. The socialist has his ideas as to what the other people in society should be like, and believes that force should be used to make them that way. After all, mechanics often have to use force, especially on old, rusty machines. After the great social machine is all fixed up and oiled properly, very little force will be necessary to keep it running smoothly... The libertarian believes that the other people have as much right to decide what they want to do, or to be like, as he does--indeed, they have the right, and he doesn't. The libertarian does not visualize himself as something outside society, shaping it into his bright vision of utopia. He believes that every person in society should be free to work toward his *own* idea of the good life. Can we help it if many of the real people out there want cars and TVs and children and vacations and all the bourgeois values that socialists disdain so much? We just don't have the itch to change them the socialists do. Take away the portion of the socialist rhetoric that has been used to further special interest over the past century, and what you are left with is a vision of a utopia (e.g. some of Marx's writings quoted by Carnes right here, or Looking Backward by Edward Bellamy). Everybody is caring, everybody chips in, each works for the good of all. But people aren't like that. People work for themselves, for their families, and to a lesser extent for friends and strangers where they can see the good effect they're having. The problem with the socialist utopia is that an average, ordinary person from the real world would be considered a perverted, selfish criminal there. So the socialist looks at the real, self- interested people of the world around him, with a jaundiced eye. I don't buy that vision. A world fit only for saints is no world for me. My idea of a utopia is a lot closer to the real world, a bustling garish place where anything can be had for a price--but with pockets and hinterlands of calm and nature, where peace and serenity can be had--for a price. A responsible society cannot be made of irresponsible people, and responsible people cannot be had by treating everyone like children. The socialist prescription -- if it worked as planned -- would put food in every stomach; but I believe that self-responsibility is a better thing in the long run than food. Responsibility is not taught by making people immune from the consequences of their actions. --JoSH
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (08/15/85)
In article <3278@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: > Besides, I was talking about Wuersch, > a considerably less perspicuous fellow than yourself. The reverse is true, and you are also unfair to Sevener. Since I won't be able to respond to the remainder of your article for a week or so, I'll let Tony (if he wishes) take up the cudgels. Richard Carnes
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (08/18/85)
>>I agree with Piotr. I'd rather believe in people than believe in >>libertaria anytime. >>Tony Wuersch > >You don't believe in people. You believe in the dehumanizing State. >You believe in feeding people like animals in cages. You believe in >denying them the economic rights they need to care for their own >physical needs; and denying them the responsibilities to themselves >and others, that they must have to develop into complete moral >human beings. I believe in trading; you believe in stealing. >I believe in cooperation; you believe in force. I believe in >voluntarism; you believe in conscription. I believe in freedom; >you believe in slavery. > >--JoSH An extraordinary response to a compassionate and reasoned article! Without (this time) commenting on libertarian theory or rationality, I would like to make a sociological observation. The USA, generally speaking, is probably the country that most strongly advocates freedom of economic choice. It also seems to be the country that breeds people who fanatically distrust state activities. In Europe, the state is more deeply involved in welfare and other activities that might be called "control". Workers frequently have part-ownership in the places where they work, and their representatives are on the Boards of Directors. People there, do NOT seem to want to move to a more libertarian condition. Is this because they are brainwashed and cannot see where their own interests lie (No, of course not: Libertarians deny this possibility), or is it because their situation is preferable to the more laissez-faire conditions here? Perhaps ease of cooperation, based on social and governmental structures, outweighs the *feeling* of freedom that would be available to a few people in a Libertaria. To parallel JoSH's peroration: >I do believe in people. I believe in the humanizing State. >I believe in feeding people rather than letting them starve. I believe in >allowing them the economic rights they need to care for their own >physical needs; and allowing them the responsibilities to themselves >and others, that they must have to develop into complete moral >human beings. I believe in trading; no-one believes in stealing. >I believe in cooperation; I believe that force must sometimes be used. I believe in >voluntarism; I believe we owe something to each other. I believe in freedom; >I believe in enslaving machines, not people. I believe that JoSH's Libertaria would lead directly to all the things he claims not to believe in. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) (08/29/85)
>>>... I'd rather believe in people than believe in libertaria anytime. >>>Tony Wuersch >> >>You don't believe in people. You believe in the dehumanizing State. >> ... >>--JoSH > (mmt:) >... The USA, generally >speaking, is probably the country that most strongly advocates freedom >of economic choice. Try Switzerland, or Hong Kong, or Singapore, or Taiwan, or Japan. > It also seems to be the country that breeds people >who fanatically distrust state activities. ... >People [in Europe], do NOT seem to want to move to a more libertarian >condition. I know quite a few Europeans who came here to live permanently, on their own. The only Americans I know who went to live in Europe had married someone who already lived there; there were few of them, and NO ONE went to Eastern Europe. But I number several ex-Eastern Europeans among my friends, and most of them have an opinion of (Eastern European) governments that you apparently just don't want to believe. >Is this because they are brainwashed and cannot see where their own >interests lie (No, of course not: Libertarians deny this possibility), There are two lies here. >or is it because their situation is preferable to the more laissez-faire >conditions here? Perhaps ease of cooperation, based on social and >governmental structures, outweighs the *feeling* of freedom that would >be available to a few people in a Libertaria. Perhaps the barbed-wire fences, the machine-gun-toting police, the ubiquitous monitoring and censorship of all means of communication, the necessity of saying the "right thing", outweigh the hopeless yearning for a little freedom, a little human dignity. >To parallel JoSH's peroration: >>I do believe in people. I believe in the humanizing State. >> ... This is really senseless. Forcing someone to do something at the point of a gun, which would be compassionate if done voluntarily, is humanizing neither to the forcer or the forcee. Loading a monster bureaucracy with millions (literally) of regulations onto people does not make them better, more caring human beings; it makes them jobholders, warmbodies, interchangeable cogs in a soulless machine. Show me a humanizing State and I'll show you a square circle. >I believe that JoSH's Libertaria would lead directly to all the >things he claims not to believe in. >Martin Taylor I not only believe that socialist snake oil will destroy those human values that Martin claimed to believe in, but I can point to half the world where people are living in physical squalor and poverty, and worse, bereft of spirit, initiative, and hope; where millions have been murdered in the name of economic equality, and the wretched survivors envy the dead. No thanks, Martin, you can keep your utopia and your precious illusions about how well the people like it. I'm a simple soul; I haven't progressed beyond either freedom or dignity, and I guess I'm just unable to grasp why you think slavery is such hot stuff. --JoSH
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (08/30/85)
> JoSH > >>>... I'd rather believe in people than believe in libertaria anytime. > >>>Tony Wuersch > >> > >>You don't believe in people. You believe in the dehumanizing State. > >> ... > >>--JoSH > > > (mmt:) > >... The USA, generally > >speaking, is probably the country that most strongly advocates freedom > >of economic choice. > > Try Switzerland, or Hong Kong, or Singapore, or Taiwan, or Japan. > > > It also seems to be the country that breeds people > >who fanatically distrust state activities. ... > >People [in Europe], do NOT seem to want to move to a more libertarian > >condition. > > I know quite a few Europeans who came here to live permanently, on their > own. The only Americans I know who went to live in Europe had married > someone who already lived there; there were few of them, and NO ONE > went to Eastern Europe. But I number several ex-Eastern Europeans > among my friends, and most of them have an opinion of (Eastern European) > governments that you apparently just don't want to believe. > ............................................................ > Perhaps the barbed-wire fences, the machine-gun-toting police, the > ubiquitous monitoring and censorship of all means of communication, > the necessity of saying the "right thing", outweigh the hopeless > yearning for a little freedom, a little human dignity. > JoSH, before replying, READ. Martin referred to Western Europe, obviously. Over there state has much larger role in the economy than in US. States run health service, railroads, most of utilities and MUCH MORE. Although there some trends for returning certain industries back to privite sector, no political party proposes to reduce the government involvement in the economy to US level. Of course, there are libertarians in Europe. For example, I attended a privite libertarian seminar back in Poland (among "barbed-wire fences"). But those are few. There was one quite powerful movement in Danmark, but now it is fading. As far as migrations are concerned, there are Americans working in West Europe and West Europeans working here. Most of them eventually return to their home countries. JoSH loves to equate non-libertarians with communists. He claims that liberals believe in slavery. But since Canada of France do not look sufficiently "dehumanized", he jumps at once to Eastern Europe. Piotr Berman
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (08/30/85)
In article <3461@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: > This is really senseless. Forcing someone to do something at the > point of a gun, which would be compassionate if done voluntarily, > is humanizing neither to the forcer or the forcee. Loading a > monster bureaucracy with millions (literally) of regulations > onto people does not make them better, more caring human beings; > it makes them jobholders, warmbodies, interchangeable cogs in > a soulless machine. Show me a humanizing State and I'll show you > a square circle. [Oh boy, a rhetoric contest! My turn to counter-flame!] It makes them fed, healthy, housed jobholders who can provide the soul of the machine they create. But I suppose Josh thinks it better that they starve, sicken, freeze, and sit impotent and idle to develop qualities that Josh certainly hasn't, if he wishes that fate upon them. Show me a libertarian state, and I'll show you economic feudalism, where Josh and his ilk think they can get into the middle and upper levels. > I not only believe that socialist snake oil will destroy those > human values that Martin claimed to believe in, but I can point to > half the world where people are living in physical squalor and > poverty, and worse, bereft of spirit, initiative, and hope; A gross exaggeration of the effects of socialism. And why would these human values exist at all in libertaria? Where a Scrooge-like economic upper class would quickly ammass the vast majority of the wealth, leaving the masses to their "merciful" whims? > where millions have been murdered in the name of economic equality, and > the wretched survivors envy the dead. Tell me of the millions killed in the name of economic equality in western European socialist countries. > No thanks, Martin, you can > keep your utopia and your precious illusions about how well the > people like it. I'm a simple soul; I haven't progressed beyond > either freedom or dignity, and I guess I'm just unable to grasp > why you think slavery is such hot stuff. It seems you haven't progressed beyond freedom or dignity because you still don't understand them. You seem to think your freedom to climb to the top of the economic heap is worth being able to trample on the backs of others, whom you'll freely grant the freedom to starve. (Paraphrase) How noble libertarianism, in it's majestic equality, that both rich and poor are equally prohibited from peeing in the privately owned streets (without paying), sleeping under the privately owned bridges (without paying), and coercing bread from its rightful owners! [End of sarcasm and rhetoric. Phew. Good thing I don't do this too often.] -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) (09/04/85)
In article <1756@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: > ... Martin referred to Western Europe, obviously. >Over there state has much larger role in the economy than in US. >... > JoSH loves to equate non-libertarians with communists. He claims that >liberals believe in slavery. But since Canada of France do not look >sufficiently "dehumanized", he jumps at once to Eastern Europe. > Piotr Berman I believe that the extent of government intervention in the economy of the western european democracies, including the "socialist" ones such as Sweden and France, are quite comparable to the US levels, consisting of direct control of about 40% of the economy and a complex and pervasive web of regulations over the rest. I have plenty of bones to pick with these "mixed economy" democracies, but the socialist ideals have considerably modified by realpolitik in practice (here and in Western Europe). To judge the socialist ideals themselves we must look to places where they have been put into practice without distorting them over such minutiae as human rights. Thus we must look further east. I repeat: The western democracies, American and European, represent ideological arenas where the actual policies are an amalgam of free- market and socialist ideals. Socialists may not legitimately claim any credit for the ameliorative effect of the resistance to their programs. The Eastern European countries are valid demonstrations of where those programs would lead without such resistance. --JoSH
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/04/85)
> [Mike Huybenz, replying to J. Storrs Hall] > It seems you haven't progressed beyond freedom or dignity because you > still don't understand them. You seem to think your freedom to climb > to the top of the economic heap is worth being able to trample on the > backs of others, whom you'll freely grant the freedom to starve. > > (Paraphrase) How noble libertarianism, in it's majestic equality, that > both rich and poor are equally prohibited from peeing in the privately > owned streets (without paying), sleeping under the privately owned > bridges (without paying), and coercing bread from its rightful owners! > [End of sarcasm and rhetoric. Phew. Good thing I don't do this too often.] -- What sarcasm? Mike has accurately summed up the consequences of extreme Libertarianism in a nutshell. Mike, please do this MORE often. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (09/05/85)
> In article <1756@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: > > ... Martin referred to Western Europe, obviously. > >Over there state has much larger role in the economy than in US. > >... > > JoSH loves to equate non-libertarians with communists. He claims that > >liberals believe in slavery. But since Canada of France do not look > >sufficiently "dehumanized", he jumps at once to Eastern Europe. > > Piotr Berman > > I believe that the extent of government intervention in the economy > of the western european democracies, including the "socialist" ones > such as Sweden and France, are quite comparable to the US levels, > consisting of direct control of about 40% of the economy and a > complex and pervasive web of regulations over the rest. I have plenty > of bones to pick with these "mixed economy" democracies, but the > socialist ideals have considerably modified by realpolitik in practice > (here and in Western Europe). To judge the socialist ideals themselves > we must look to places where they have been put into practice without > distorting them over such minutiae as human rights. Thus we must look > further east. > > I repeat: The western democracies, American and European, represent > ideological arenas where the actual policies are an amalgam of free- > market and socialist ideals. Socialists may not legitimately claim > any credit for the ameliorative effect of the resistance to their > programs. The Eastern European countries are valid demonstrations > of where those programs would lead without such resistance. > > --JoSH What is the resistance JoSH is talking about? Who was against mixed economy in Western Europe? Answer: fringe groups, that's all. As somebody noticed, the speed of economical growth in years after WWII in Western countries is larger than at any time before. If the argument of JoSH would be valid, then the following would be valid as well: if you do not like martini consisting of one big block of ice + one drop of vodka then you should drink undiluted warm vodka. As a person who either drinks pure water or pure alcohol, JoSH would rely exlusively on the market. In his argument, he equates democratic state, which incorporates checks and balances, with an undemocratic one, which doesnot. His argument about the superiority of the free market assumes a one-sided picture of a human being: a profit maximizer. This may suffice in short-range economical modeling, but fails when applied to a model of a complete political system. Group interests, antagonisms and power games will surface in any system. His belief that the market may be a sufficient moderator is just a wishful thinking. His statement about detrimantal role of state in a mixed economy defies the unprecedent succes of the mixed economies. Piotr Berman
dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (09/06/85)
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) >In article <3461@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: >> This is really senseless. Forcing someone to do something at the >> point of a gun, which would be compassionate if done voluntarily, >> is humanizing neither to the forcer or the forcee. Loading a >> monster bureaucracy with millions (literally) of regulations >> onto people does not make them better, more caring human beings; >> it makes them jobholders, warmbodies, interchangeable cogs in >> a soulless machine. Show me a humanizing State and I'll show you >> a square circle. > >It makes them fed, healthy, housed jobholders who can provide the soul >of the machine they create. But I suppose Josh thinks it better that they >starve, sicken, freeze, and sit impotent and idle to develop qualities that >Josh certainly hasn't, if he wishes that fate upon them. Show me a >libertarian state, and I'll show you economic feudalism, where Josh and >his ilk think they can get into the middle and upper levels. A problem that Mike and his ilk have is that they believe that there is a free lunch. But, there is no magic pool from which people can draw some share of wealth no matter how badly it is needed. A 19th century French economist by the name of Frederic Bastiat defined the State as "that fiction by which people believe they can live at someone else's expense". The State is not the source of prosperity, because it cannot generate wealth. It can only distribute poverty, because it can only consume the wealth that people must produce themselves. *All* the goodies that the State "provides" are those that, but for people expending their own blood, sweat, and tears, would not even exist. >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh These opinions belong to anyone who wants to claim them. David Olson ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo "To laugh at men of sense is the privilege of fools". -- Jean de la Bruyere
josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) (09/06/85)
In article <1766@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: >> [quoting me] >> I repeat: The western democracies, American and European, represent >> ideological arenas where the actual policies are an amalgam of free- >> market and socialist ideals. Socialists may not legitimately claim >> any credit for the ameliorative effect of the resistance to their >> programs. The Eastern European countries are valid demonstrations >> of where those programs would lead without such resistance. >> --JoSH > What is the resistance JoSH is talking about? Who was against mixed >economy in Western Europe? ... >Piotr Berman Ah, come on! You have got to be stupid as well as malicious to misinterpret something that badly. The mixed economy is the RESULT of the conflict of free market and command economy ideologies. --JoSH
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (09/06/85)
> In article <1766@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: > >> [quoting me] > >> I repeat: The western democracies, American and European, represent > >> ideological arenas where the actual policies are an amalgam of free- > >> market and socialist ideals. Socialists may not legitimately claim > >> any credit for the ameliorative effect of the resistance to their > >> programs. The Eastern European countries are valid demonstrations > >> of where those programs would lead without such resistance. > >> --JoSH > > > What is the resistance JoSH is talking about? Who was against mixed > >economy in Western Europe? ... > >Piotr Berman > > Ah, come on! You have got to be stupid as well as malicious to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > misinterpret something that badly. The mixed economy is the RESULT > of the conflict of free market and command economy ideologies. > > --JoSH There are two points of view on ideologies and policies. JoSH thinks that as the first thing an average person/politician/bissnessman establishes a philosophical basis of his opinions. Subsequently, his/her actions are guided by the chosen ideology. My point of view is different. According to my observations, poeple encounter problems and then look for solutions. In practice, the professed ideologies have quite moderate impact on their decisions. Of course, the prevaling ideologies, together with traditions, have their impact. One may point that in countries without democratic traditions, like Russia, China, Yugoslavia, socialist ideology yielded a dictatorship, while in Sweden, with its democratic tradition, there was no tendency toward dictatorship. As far as the mixed economy goes, one may notice that it emerged originally as a set of pragmatic solutions, not supported by any socialist ideology. Otto Bismark, who introduced the mixed economy in Germany was a conservative with high contempt toward socialism. Libertarians claim the Great Depression to be the result of the inept state intervention by Hoover administration. Again it is difficult to trace the influence of socialism on Hoover. Even more difficult is to explain statist tendencies of Hamilton by any socialist influence. One may point that the mainstream conservatives, like Eisenhower and Nixon, had nothing against the mixed economy. In general, such element of state intervention like public works, control over banking industry and utilities, are contested exclusively by a highly ideological minority with no access to decision making (if one exludes the venerated example of gen. Pinochet). The "free market" turned into mixed economy not because of the poisonous impact of socialism, but because the leaders of industry could not copy with some of the major problems faced by their economies. No one was eager to finance the interstate system with private funds, or to build it without eminent domain, or patiently wait until private sector will be able to accomplish it. I noticed that JoSH used the term "command economy ideology" instead of "socialism". In fact, it is difficult to pinpoit any general ideology of this kind. Moreover, in his previous postings, JoSH referred to socialism (it was such a posting which I objected to in a "stupid and malicious" fashion). Piotr Berman
mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (09/09/85)
In article <1769@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: > As far as the mixed economy goes, one may notice that it emerged >originally as a set of pragmatic solutions, not supported by any >socialist ideology. Otto Bismark, who introduced the mixed economy >in Germany was a conservative with high contempt toward socialism. Actually, Bismarck was a militarist, with a strong feudalist streak. If there is any practical difference between feudalism and socialism, it has escaped me. >Libertarians claim the Great Depression to be the result of the >inept state intervention by Hoover administration. Again it is >difficult to trace the influence of socialism on Hoover. Poor old Hoover is always blamed for the depression, but in fact he had little to do with it. The proximate cause of the depression was a one-third cut in the money supply by the Federal Reserve (not a one-third cut in the rate of increase: a one-third cut in the supply itself). A contributing factor was Hawley-Smoot, which I hope the Democrats remember this fall...there is also some evidence that the New Deal extended the Depression. -- Rick.
josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) (09/10/85)
>[Berman] >There are two points of view on ideologies and policies. JoSH thinks >that as the first thing an average person/politician/bissnessman >establishes a philosophical basis of his opinions. Subsequently, >his/her actions are guided by the chosen ideology. No. I think that some politicians are this way, but that most people, most politicians included, are not explicitly aware of the ideology they are exercising. A businessman may profess the free market, but will nevertheless call for protectionism. His "true" ideology is mercantilism. >Of course, the prevaling ideologies, together with traditions, have >their impact. One may point that in countries without democratic >traditions, like Russia, China, Yugoslavia, socialist ideology yielded >a dictatorship, while in Sweden, with its democratic tradition, >there was no tendency toward dictatorship. You probably don't realize this, but in the latter part of the nineteenth century, free market ("libertarian") ideas were the ruling orthodoxy in most of Scandinavia. This was due to a large influence on the intellectual elite there by the French politician/writer Bastiat. > I noticed that JoSH used the term "command economy ideology" instead >of "socialism". In fact, it is difficult to pinpoit any general >ideology of this kind. Moreover, in his previous postings, JoSH >referred to socialism (it was such a posting which I objected to >in a "stupid and malicious" fashion). >Piotr Berman The terms are more-or-less interchangeable as far as I'm concerned, but arguments abound. Is a Nazi a socialist? He claims to be... How about a Fascist? Russia also claims to be Socialist. Whatever its precice boundaries, Socialism is a command economy ideology. So are Communism, Fascism, Nazism, and numerous others. I will allow you to call yourself by whatever label you wish, but a rose by any other name... --JoSH
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (09/10/85)
> >[Berman] > [JoSH] I accused JoSH that he thinks that most of the people are motivated by some ideology. > No. I think that some politicians are this way, but that most people, > most politicians included, are not explicitly aware of the ideology > they are exercising. A businessman may profess the free market, > but will nevertheless call for protectionism. His "true" ideology > is mercantilism. The poor guy does not know that he speaks prose. More seriously, whatever ideology happen to be professed, people enact (or ask for) policies which they perceive as doing them some good. Yoy may provide a classification of their desires (this one is socialist, that mercantilist, etc.), but this is your ideology, not theirs. They are pragmatists, not ideologists. It is a question of debate whether it is better to be an ideologist, or pragmatist. I myself do not know a clear answer, JoSH claims that the coherence is more important than "adjusting to reality". I admit that this standpoint is intellectually atractive: after numerous adjusments to achieve this and that, a pragmatist may achieve very little of either. However, not adjusting may lead to very sordid consequences. In general, only ideologists are able to meke very bold moves, when they are necessary. The problem is that a bold meve may be made in the wrong direction. A previous posting claim the behaviour of FED to cause the crash of 1929. They allegedly made a very bold move: decreased money supply by one third. Afterwards, there was New Deal, and things improved, but only by a little. Libertarians claim that a bold lesser-faire policy would be a better cure for the Depression. Keynessians claim that only truly massive public expenditures could help, as they did indeed during WWII. > >Of course, the prevaling ideologies, together with traditions, have > >their impact. One may point that in countries without democratic > >traditions, like Russia, China, Yugoslavia, socialist ideology yielded > >a dictatorship, while in Sweden, with its democratic tradition, > >there was no tendency toward dictatorship. > > You probably don't realize this, but in the latter part of the nineteenth > century, free market ("libertarian") ideas were the ruling orthodoxy > in most of Scandinavia. This was due to a large influence on the > intellectual elite there by the French politician/writer Bastiat. > An interesting information. Also, an interesting problem: what caused the demise of free market ideology in Scandinavia? Apparently, at certain point people perceived (wrongly?) that the free market is not working any more, so they replaced it by a mixed system, which seem to be working for at nearly 50 years (I admit that they got some problems now, especially in Danmark). What went wrong? Perceptions, or the very free market? [I propose that anyone who wants to continue that will go to a library and read some history, I will do it tomorrow]. Piotr Berman
josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) (09/12/85)
In article <1778@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: >...whatever ideology happen to be professed, people enact (or ask for) >policies which they perceive as doing them some good. Hey wait a minute, that's MY point! Who's been saying all this time that "people will always act in their own self interest"? It sure wasn't the statists, who have been saying "people will act selflessly in the greater interests of society as a whole, if they win a popularity/ tall tales contest." Miraculous how an Evil Capitalist can be turned into a Saintly Statesman by being given oodles and heaps of coercive power (case in point: NJ's junior senator). But there is something more subtle going on. An ideology is not that which act for INSTEAD of your self interest; it is, to a great degree, that which you use to interpret events and actions to determine what IS in your self interest. If one of your interests is the betterment of society, it will color your ideas of what IS better for society. >A previous posting claim the behaviour of FED to cause the crash >of 1929. They allegedly made a very bold move: decreased money >supply by one third. Afterwards, there was New Deal, and things >improved, but only by a little. Libertarians claim that a bold >lesser-faire policy would be a better cure for the Depression. This is a marvelous example for the point above. Libertarians claim that the expenditures of the New Deal made the Depression WORSE--indeed they are what made it the Great Depression, there having been lots of little ones before. >Keynessians claim that only truly massive public expenditures >could help, as they did indeed during WWII. ...and note carefully: the question of whether this is in their self interest does not apply here, in historical speculation. The varying ideologies are being used purely as theories about how the world works. >An interesting information. Also, an interesting problem: what caused >the demise of free market ideology in Scandinavia? A study of intellectual history will show you that it was around 1900 that socialist ideas began having their greatest impact on leading political thinkers, though it took time for them to "trickle down" to the mass of second-hand idea dealers such as politicians and the press. --JoSH
bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) (09/15/85)
Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ Keywords: In article <3632@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: { >> = P. Berman } >>An interesting information. Also, an interesting problem: what caused >>the demise of free market ideology in Scandinavia? > >A study of intellectual history will show you that it was around >1900 that socialist ideas began having their greatest impact >on leading political thinkers, though it took time for them to >"trickle down" to the mass of second-hand idea dealers such as >politicians and the press. > >--JoSH This reply begs the question, which is How is it that the people of Scandinavia (and the rest of Western Europe, and the US ) allowed themselves to be decieved into accepting democratic socialism when it was clearly contrary to their best interests? Bob Weiler.