orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (07/05/85)
> From Clayton Cramer: > Study libertarianism as well. The assumption is that people will work for > a living. The example of history demonstrates that while free markets > don't guarantee that everyone will be well off, few people have starved > to death in free markets. You have got to be *kidding* Mr. Cramer! Go to Third World countries throughout the world and see how many poor people are *starving* while a landed aristocracy controls the vast majority of the land. Right now in Brazil there is a big controversy because the newly elected democratic government has decided to institute a land reform program because there are *thousands* of *starving* (yes, starving Mr. Cramer) peasants who want desperately to work but have no land to till and no other job to do. The *starving* peasants have no land because 45% of it (according to a Brazilian govt spokesperson) is owned by 1% of the population. And they will not allow peasants to till this land although the owners do not use it whatsoever. The Brazilian government has decided to redistribute such unused land to the peasants in return for compensation to its present owners. I had meant to present this case previously for those Libertarians who support the "ownership by use" approach. It would seem to me that this is an excellent example of unjust *and* unproductive ownership of wealth. Who would support such a land reform program? The basic point of this example is simply to point out that *there is no guarantee* that people will *not* starve in a free market. In order for a "free market" to prevent starvation then there must some reasonable distribution of wealth in that free market. Otherwise many people have no access to any means with which to participate in the market (namely the means of production) In our own country such a situation was alleviated by the farsighted "Homestead Act" which provided 160 acres *if* it were farmed for 5 years. But even with our own large middle-class there were thousands of people in soup lines in our own country during the Great Depression. How many *starved* is difficult to tell. But you can be sure many did. tim sevener whuxl!orb
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/08/85)
>/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 9:07 am Jul 5, 1985 */ >You have got to be *kidding* Mr. Cramer! Go to Third World countries >throughout the world and see how many poor people are *starving* while >a landed aristocracy controls the vast majority of the land. STRAWMAN! He said FREE markets. Such markets are not free. >The Brazilian government has >decided to redistribute such unused land to the peasants in return for >compensation to its present owners. It is not clear that they should even be compensated. How did they acquire this land? The question of what exactly constitutes "justly-acquired" property is a complicated one, but in many third world countries the land has been acquired unjustly, and should therefore be open to anyone who wants to work it. >I had meant to present this case previously for those Libertarians who >support the "ownership by use" approach. It would seem to me that >this is an excellent example of unjust *and* unproductive ownership of >wealth. The "ownership by use" approach may be problematic, but it is not clear that it even applies here. Mush of the land may have been acquired coercively and would, according to libertarian principles, therefore not be considered the legitimate property of these aristocratic owners. >The basic point of this example is simply to point out that *there is >no guarantee* that people will *not* starve in a free market. In order >for a "free market" to prevent starvation then there must some reasonable >distribution of wealth in that free market. There is no guarantee that people won't starve (PERIOD). Provided there is no shortage of land, the free market can't prevent people from stopping themselves from starving. Statist systems can and do. > tim sevener whuxl!orb Mike Sykora
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (07/09/85)
In article <677@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >... Go to Third World countries >throughout the world and see how many poor people are *starving* while >a landed aristocracy controls the vast majority of the land. For the past month of so I've essentially ignored a hemorrage of mindless drivel from sevener about libertarians this, government that, how traffic in New Jersey (the most policed state in the nation) is an example of anarchy, and further insults to any sense of truth, honesty, and reasoned discussion. This latest piece of distilled paranoia and class hatred, however, represents a new low. Starvation in today's world occurs not quite but almost exclusively because of "democratic" collectivist intervention. Ethiopia was a net food exporter before its Communist takeover; so was Russia. If you're interested in a study of the phenomenon on a global scale, try "A Pattern for Failure" by Sven Rydenfelt. It is somewhat depressing... In espousing the very socialistic systems that are responsible for the carnage, tim displays his political naivete and ignorance; in pretending at the same time to feel for the victims, he exhibits an utter callous disregard for any human decency whatsoever. --JoSH
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (07/09/85)
> In article <677@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > >... Go to Third World countries > >throughout the world and see how many poor people are *starving* while > >a landed aristocracy controls the vast majority of the land. > > This latest piece of distilled paranoia and class hatred, however, > represents a new low. Starvation in today's world occurs not quite > but almost exclusively because of "democratic" collectivist intervention. > Ethiopia was a net food exporter before its Communist takeover; so > was Russia. If you're interested in a study of the phenomenon on a > global scale, try "A Pattern for Failure" by Sven Rydenfelt. It is > somewhat depressing... > > In espousing the very socialistic systems that are responsible for > the carnage, tim displays his political naivete and ignorance; in > pretending at the same time to feel for the victims, he exhibits > an utter callous disregard for any human decency whatsoever. > --JoSH 1)Because a country is a net food exporter doesn't prove anything about the well-being of its citizens or the *fact* that the country's own native peasant population may be starving while the landed aristocracy cultivates cash crops for exports. It has been typical of imperialism to redirect production towards exports of raw materials for the imperialist while production for the native population's own use suffers. Go down to Brazil and tell the starving peasants there clamoring for land or *some way* to maintain a living that Brazil's exports mean they are less hungry. Hunger is endemic to Third World countries. As a case in point India produced primarily for its own people and although suffering from periodic famines, never suffered the widespread hunger it did after the British took over and redirected production for the people's food to production of cotton to fuel the British textile industry. It is behooven on you to prove, not that food exports are up or down, which is not the issue, but to prove that the people in Capitalistic countries are not starving. You will have a very difficult time proving such a thesis. It is incumbent upon me to demonstrate that many people in Capitalistic Third World countries *are* starving. That will be very easy to demonstrate. 2)I am not attempting to justify collectivization of agriculture. I do not think such an approach makes sense. In my view it is imposing an "industrial" model which Marx applied to factory production on a necessarily dispersed mode of production and it makes no sense except that it more conveniently fits an ideology suited to factories. However I *do* think that some government support for agriculture in terms of agricultural extension services, aid to agricultural colleges and education and most importantly, land reform coupled with price supports are essential to alleviate the masses hunger. Libertarians, on the other hand, oppose any government intervention whatsoever (as I understand their position) which will leave millions of people starving. 3)It is not "paranoia" to point out that millions of people are starving. Nor is it class hatred to point out that landed aristocracies are a major part of the problem. Many bourgeois and thoroughly Capitalistically oriented developmental economists have reached the same conclusion. I do not hate the landed aristocracies in the Third World- I simply would like to see their control and ownership of the land people need to live removed and returned to their starving people- so they can *eat*. tim sevener whuxl!orb
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (07/16/85)
>This latest piece of distilled paranoia and class hatred, however, >represents a new low. Starvation in today's world occurs not quite >but almost exclusively because of "democratic" collectivist intervention. >Ethiopia was a net food exporter before its Communist takeover; so >was Russia. If you're interested in a study of the phenomenon on a >global scale, try "A Pattern for Failure" by Sven Rydenfelt. It is >somewhat depressing... >--JoSH A little bit of paranoia there, too, I think. Some years ago, in Scientific American (I think), there was a discussion of world food supply and the related demography. Around 1950 there were some 45 countries (both 45 and 1950 are vague memories) that were net food exporters. By the time of the article (1975?) there were only 7, and those were countries of relatively high energy availability, large grasslands and (except the US) low population densities (even the US has pretty low population density if averaged over the whole area). To put the whole cause of relatively reduced food production and starvation onto "democrativ collectivist intervention" is simply malicious nonsense. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/18/85)
> > From Clayton Cramer: > > Study libertarianism as well. The assumption is that people will work for > > a living. The example of history demonstrates that while free markets > > don't guarantee that everyone will be well off, few people have starved > > to death in free markets. > > You have got to be *kidding* Mr. Cramer! Go to Third World countries > throughout the world and see how many poor people are *starving* while > a landed aristocracy controls the vast majority of the land. Mr. Sevener: Do you know what a free market is? A free market is unheard of in the Third World. Most Third World governments distribute franchises, licenses, and business permits to those with friends in high places. (Try Somoza's Nicaragua for a good example.) A good example is El Salvador's land distribution. In the 1880s, the El Salvadoran government decided that the "national interest" was to promote large scale coffee farming, and since the land was broken into parcels "too small" to profitably farm, the government required that small parcels had to be sold to larger landholders. Hardly a free market action, and hardly the result of free markets. > Right now in Brazil there is a big controversy because the newly elected > democratic government has decided to institute a land reform program > because there are *thousands* of *starving* (yes, starving Mr. Cramer) > peasants who want desperately to work but have no land to till and no > other job to do. The *starving* peasants have no land because 45% of > it (according to a Brazilian govt spokesperson) is owned by 1% of the > population. And they will not allow peasants to till this land although > the owners do not use it whatsoever. The Brazilian government has > decided to redistribute such unused land to the peasants in return for > compensation to its present owners. > Land grants dating from the Portguese have a lot to do with; a land grant from a king can hardly qualify as a free market action. > I had meant to present this case previously for those Libertarians who > support the "ownership by use" approach. It would seem to me that > this is an excellent example of unjust *and* unproductive ownership of > wealth. > Who would support such a land reform program? > When land ownership is the result of absurdities like the Spanish Conquest, I can completely agree that land reform makes sense. > The basic point of this example is simply to point out that *there is > no guarantee* that people will *not* starve in a free market. In order > for a "free market" to prevent starvation then there must some reasonable > distribution of wealth in that free market. Otherwise many people have > no access to any means with which to participate in the market (namely > the means of production) > Free markets have reasonable distribution; the Third World is a good example of the foolish of large scale government intervention in the economy. > In our own country such a situation was alleviated by the farsighted > "Homestead Act" which provided 160 acres *if* it were farmed for 5 years. > But even with our own large middle-class there were thousands of people > in soup lines in our own country during the Great Depression. > How many *starved* is difficult to tell. But you can be sure many did. > > tim sevener whuxl!orb My parents lived through the Great Depression. While times were *extremely* tough for them, they were unaware of people starving to death --- at least partly because a lot of people who were still working helped out those who were less fortunate.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/22/85)
In article <375@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> You have got to be *kidding* Mr. Cramer! Go to Third World countries >> throughout the world and see how many poor people are *starving* while >> a landed aristocracy controls the vast majority of the land. >Mr. Sevener: Do you know what a free market is? A free market is unheard >of in the Third World. Most Third World governments distribute franchises, >licenses, and business permits to those with friends in high places. (Try >Somoza's Nicaragua for a good example.) It seems to me that there is a serious problem here. Actually, two problems. Some of Cramer's remarks seem to imply that a market in which the economic forces are unrestrained is still not free if the distribution of wealth is not sufficiently equitable. This seems to me to present a problem because I don't see how you are going to get to a free market in any current society. Coupled with this is a more serious problem; in the absence of any coercive force outside of the market, there's nothing to prevent tremendous inequities from developing. There seems to me to be a persistent trend towards greater size wherever there are not natural boundaries to check that growth. Larger corporations tend to be better able to weather bad times than smaller ones, and can recover from their mistakes more easily. This growth is partially checked in this country by a combination of political boundaries, restrictive laws, and regional differences. By virtue of anti-monopoly laws, we have a market which is not sufficiently free to permit this growth to continue unchecked. This distinction is important, by the way. It is simplistic to view market freedom as being all-or-nothing. The current US market is much less free than the markets of pre-antitrust law were, but I don't think that anyone is especially worse off as a result. I'm willing to live with a fair amount of law in exchange for some reduction in the economic power of the rich. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (07/22/85)
In article <375@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > [tim sevener whuxl!orb] > > The basic point of this example is simply to point out that *there is > > no guarantee* that people will *not* starve in a free market. In order > > for a "free market" to prevent starvation then there must some reasonable > > distribution of wealth in that free market. Otherwise many people have > > no access to any means with which to participate in the market (namely > > the means of production) > > Free markets have reasonable distribution.... I've dissected out this exchange to ask (undistracted by side questions): What makes you think "free markets" would have "reasonable distribution" of the sort that would prevent starvation? -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (07/24/85)
In article <1631@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: (quoting me) >>This latest piece of distilled paranoia and class hatred, however, >>represents a new low. Starvation in today's world occurs not quite >>but almost exclusively because of "democratic" collectivist intervention. >>Ethiopia was a net food exporter before its Communist takeover; so >>was Russia. If you're interested in a study of the phenomenon on a >>global scale, try "A Pattern for Failure" by Sven Rydenfelt. It is >>somewhat depressing... >>--JoSH > >... To put the whole cause of >relatively reduced food production and starvation onto "democrativ >collectivist intervention" is simply malicious nonsense. >Martin Taylor Read the book, son. You'll change your mind. --JoSH
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (07/24/85)
In article <2878@topaz.ARPA> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: > In article <1631@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: > >>(J Storrs Hall) writes: > >>If you're interested in a study of the phenomenon on a > >>global scale, try "A Pattern for Failure" by Sven Rydenfelt. It is > >>somewhat depressing... > > > >... To put the whole cause of > >relatively reduced food production and starvation onto "democrativ > >collectivist intervention" is simply malicious nonsense. > >Martin Taylor > > Read the book, son. You'll change your mind. > > --JoSH You know, Josh, you should really lay off the patronizing bullshit and answer the points, rather than thumping your "bible(s)". There's no reason for you to assume he'd be as credulous as you seem to be. Taylor wrote a fine rebuttal of your argument (which you have edited out.) Do you seriously think we're going to believe the answers are in your book any more than we believe the answers are in the Bible? Yes we can read the book: but you have already. Do us the courtesy of summarizing the book's rebuttal to Taylor's argument, rather than insulting us. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (07/25/85)
>> >>If you're interested in a study of the phenomenon on a >> >>global scale, try "A Pattern for Failure" by Sven Rydenfelt. It is >> >>somewhat depressing... >Do you seriously think we're going to believe the answers are in your book >any more than we believe the answers are in the Bible? Yes we can read >the book: but you have already. Do us the courtesy of summarizing the >book's rebuttal to Taylor's argument, rather than insulting us. >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh There are many issues which cannot be fully understood on the basis of flip repartee on netnews, and this is one of them. One can point to this social mechanism, that economic tendency; but to understand what actually happens when actual Communists take over an actual country one must consult sources more informed than net.politics. I'm not writing for those who, like you and Tim Sevener, have an open mouth instead of an open mind; I'm writing primarily for my conscience to speak out against the collectivism and love of coercion that is the dogma of the current intellectual elite. If there are people reading who are interested in understanding why people starve in the real world, rather than making rhetorical points on the net, do some reading-- but look for facts and do your own interpretation. Rydenfelt is not a bad place to start; this book is a set of case histories, not an "argument". --JoSH
rdh@sun.uucp (Robert Hartman) (08/03/85)
> > What makes you think "free markets" would have "reasonable distribution" > of the sort that would prevent starvation? > -- Actually, speaking in terms of what the economists who actually influence the market's infrastructure (big word for policies that preserve free-market appearances) are taught, a central tenet of Public Interest Economics is: If a transaction or policy benefits some, but not others, and the total value of the transaction is a net aggregate gain, the transaction or policy should be carried out, whether or not the winners actually can or do compensate the losers. Given this, it follows that not only is there no guarantee that the so-called free markets now in practice will lead to even or wide distribution, but rather, to just the opposite. Theoretically, of course, Public Interest Economics is contrary to the free market. Both because it gives government a rationale to meddle, and because it allows collective decisions to alter the competitive positions of individual players. Still, without some basis for justifying a decision, how do you get roads, courts, and currency? Note that I don't think that the above rationale is proper. I feel that whenever the government interferes with the market (even for its own good), it should consider the distributional effects of its actions and counterbalance them. -bob.