[net.politics.theory] Libertarians in Space

gabor@qantel.UUCP (Gabor Fencsik@ex2642) (06/02/85)

JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>, in his Arpanet digest (V5 #23), discusses 
space colonization as follows:

>I myself am personally very gung-ho on space colonization, to the 
>extent of being willing to spend several thousand dollars to further
>its cause over the next decade or two (this doesn't come to more
>than most serious hobbies).  However, I'll be damned if I'll give it
>to a political entity (read: any organization in which voting occurs).

I find this a very revealing glimpse of the libertarian mind in action.
The ostensible logical basis of libertarian opposition to government is
the non-coercion principle. What JoSH's quote shows is the presence of
a much stronger emotional and theological objection to the political
sphere per se, even in cases where coercion is really not part of the
picture (we are talking about the by-laws of a voluntary organization,
not the government of space colonies).

Why is it that political transactions are a BAD THING whereas market
transactions are GOOD THINGS? I can only speculate but my guess is that
political transactions seem inherently impure, involving parliamentary
nonsense, emotionalism, compromises and distasteful tradeoffs between
logically unrelated demands of interest groups. Market transactions, on
the other hand, are purely technical and are apparently amenable to
cold analysis. Which is why libertarianism (a fringe group, really)
seems to loom so large in engineering circles.

-----
Gabor Fencsik         {dual,nsc,hplabs,intelca,proper}!qantel!gabor   

josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (06/03/85)

In article <446@qantel.UUCP> gabor@qantel.UUCP (Gabor Fencsik@ex2642) writes:
>JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>, in his Arpanet digest (V5 #23), discusses 
>space colonization as follows:
>>...  However, I'll be damned if I'll give it
>>to a political entity (read: any organization in which voting occurs).
>
>Why is it that political transactions are a BAD THING whereas market
>transactions are GOOD THINGS?

It's a shame you didn't quote (read?) the rest of the article. I believe
that markets work better than majoritarian rule in general; and in the
article in question I gave several specific reasons germane to the
particular endeavor in question, including the fact that there is
a considerable danger of "absolute power corrupting" when an organization
runs a machine (space colony) on which everyone's life depends.

> I can only speculate but my guess is that
>political transactions seem inherently impure, involving parliamentary
>nonsense, emotionalism, compromises and distasteful tradeoffs between
>logically unrelated demands of interest groups. Market transactions, on
>the other hand, are purely technical and are apparently amenable to
>cold analysis. ...
>Gabor Fencsik         {dual,nsc,hplabs,intelca,proper}!qantel!gabor   

Each is amenable to the same analysis, but people refuse to analyze
the political process in the same light they do the market.  I suggest
that you merely start with the same assumption:  that individuals
operating in a political system will all try to maximize their
self-interest.  Try it--I expect you'll be a libertarian by tomorrow.

--JoSH

gabor@qantel.UUCP (Gabor Fencsik@ex2642) (06/07/85)

JoSH (josh@topaz) on differences between market vs. political transactions:

> Each is amenable to the same analysis, but people refuse to analyze
> the political process in the same light they do the market.  I suggest
> that you merely start with the same assumption:  that individuals
> operating in a political system will all try to maximize their
> self-interest.  Try it--I expect you'll be a libertarian by tomorrow.

Perhaps. But as I'm getting ready to turn in for the night, fully expecting 
to wake up a libertarian, I am still bothered by the shallowness of an analysis 
built on such assumptions. There are plenty of human impulses besides self-
interest; I am sure you can detect some of them in yourself and those around
you. This wild reductionist maneuver (declaring all other impulses irrelevant
to political analysis) is reminescent of the worst vulgar Marxists who, of
course, would substitute 'class interest' for self-interest. Otherwise, they
proceed toward the same intellectual paradise where everything can be
explained from first principles. 

-----
Gabor Fencsik         {dual,nsc,hplabs,intelca,proper}!qantel!gabor   

tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (06/11/85)

In article <454@qantel.UUCP>, gabor@qantel.UUCP (Gabor Fencsik@ex2642) writes:
> There are plenty of human impulses besides self-
> interest; I am sure you can detect some of them in yourself and those around
> you.

I want to echo this.  Just recently I began reading a fine book by Bernard
Williams, an analytic philosopher, on "Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy".
He has a very cogent passage on rationality:

"There is one motive for reductivism that does not operate simply on the
ethical, or on the nonethical, but tends to reduce every consideration to
one basic kind.  This rests on an assumption about rationality, to the
effect that two considerations cannot be rationally weighed against each
other unless there is a common consideration in terms of which they can be
compared.  This assumption is at once very powerful and utterly baseless.
Quite apart from the ethical, aesthetic considerations can be weighed
against economic ones (for instance) without being an application of them,
and without their both being an example of a third kind of consideration.
Politicians know that political considerations are not all made out of the
same material as considerations against which they are weighed;  even
different political considerations can be made out of different material.
If one compares one job, holiday, or companion with another, judgment does
not need a particular set of weights.

This is not merely a matter of intellectual error.  If it were that, it
could not survive the fact that people's experience contradicts it, that
they regularly arrive at conclusions they regard as rational, or at least
as reasonable, without using one currency of comparison.  The drive toward
a *RATIONALISTIC CONCEPTION OF RATIONALITY* comes instead from social
features of the modern world, which impose on personal deliberation and on
the idea of practical reason itself a model drawn from a particular
understanding of public rationality.  This understanding requires in
principle every decision to be based on grounds that can be discursively
explained.  The requirement is not in fact met, and it probably does little
for the aim that authority should be genuinely answerable.  But it is an
influential ideal and, by a reversal of the order of causes, it can look as
if it were the result of applying to the public world an independent ideal
of rationality." (p. 17-18)

Later on Williams goes after this "independent ideal" and beats it down,
but I won't go into that here ...

I would claim that any political or social philosophy that sticks to a
rigidly reductivist definition of rational behavior will not adapt to (that
is, won't see or will deny) modes of rationality that don't fit the
reductionist model.  Were it to take power, it might try to suppress other
rational methods or strip them of power.

I would further suggest that the requirement that every decision should be
based on grounds which can be discursively explained is a rule of
bureaucratic rationality.  I think Williams suggests this later on in his
book.

A big mistake often made by political and old organizational theorists is to
make judgments that a state or an organization must be built to guarantee
bureaucratic rationality in all of its relations with citizens or clients,
just to fit the theorist's ideal criteria.  (the reversal of causes fallacy)

I also suggest that libertarianism is a stellar example of a political
philosophy that fulfills both the above anti-goals:  it justifies itself via
a reductivist definition of rational and ethical behavior, and it defends
its ideal state in practical matters via bureaucratic rational arguments.
Its solutions are "simple" and hence good because they embody bureaucratic
ideals.

Tony Wuersch
{amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw

cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/28/85)

> 
> JoSH (josh@topaz) on differences between market vs. political transactions:
> 
> > Each is amenable to the same analysis, but people refuse to analyze
> > the political process in the same light they do the market.  I suggest
> > that you merely start with the same assumption:  that individuals
> > operating in a political system will all try to maximize their
> > self-interest.  Try it--I expect you'll be a libertarian by tomorrow.
> 
> Perhaps. But as I'm getting ready to turn in for the night, fully expecting 
> to wake up a libertarian, I am still bothered by the shallowness of an analysis 
> built on such assumptions. There are plenty of human impulses besides self-
> interest; I am sure you can detect some of them in yourself and those around
> you. This wild reductionist maneuver (declaring all other impulses irrelevant
> to political analysis) is reminescent of the worst vulgar Marxists who, of
> course, would substitute 'class interest' for self-interest. Otherwise, they
> proceed toward the same intellectual paradise where everything can be
> explained from first principles. 
> 
> -----
> Gabor Fencsik         {dual,nsc,hplabs,intelca,proper}!qantel!gabor   

There are many motivations besides self-interest and greed --- but there
are no so certain to be present in almost all people, almost all the
time.  The socialists assume that most people will look out for the interests
of the society as a whole; libertarians assume that most people will
look out for their own interests.  

Each ideology has constructed its systems based on these assumptions.
If the socialist is wrong, and people are greedy and unconcerned for 
others, then a socialist society will be poor and subject to tremendous 
potential for abuse of the individual.  If the libertarian is wrong, and
people are not entirely greedy, those positive attitudes will lead them
to private social activity for the good of the less fortunate.  Which
do you want to rely on?

baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (06/29/85)

> There are many motivations besides self-interest and greed --- but there
> are no so certain (sic) to be present in almost all people, almost all the
> time.  The socialists assume that most people will look out for the interests
> of the society as a whole; libertarians assume that most people will
> look out for their own interests.
>
>					Clayton Cramer

Not quite.  The socialists assume that people will *not* look out
for the interests of society as a whole, exactly what you ascribe to
the libertarian position.  The difference is that the socialists assume
that the interests of society as a whole *should* be looked after, and
since they think no one else will, they rightly or wrongly expect 
government to do so.

>                                         If the libertarian is wrong, and
> people are not entirely greedy, those positive attitudes will lead them
> to private social activity for the good of the less fortunate.  

And if your libertarian is *correct*, private social activity will *not* 
replace the role of government, and the poor bastards will just starve in 
the dark.  

Ergo your libertarianism only works if it is fundamentally in error.

						Baba ROM DOS

bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) (06/29/85)

Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ

In article <293@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>There are many motivations besides self-interest and greed --- but there
>are no so certain to be present in almost all people, almost all the
>time.  The socialists assume that most people will look out for the interests
>of the society as a whole; libertarians assume that most people will
>look out for their own interests.  
>
>Each ideology has constructed its systems based on these assumptions.
>If the socialist is wrong, and people are greedy and unconcerned for 
>others, then a socialist society will be poor and subject to tremendous 
>potential for abuse of the individual.  If the libertarian is wrong, and
>people are not entirely greedy, those positive attitudes will lead them
>to private social activity for the good of the less fortunate.  Which
>do you want to rely on?

Its not the fact that the assumptions of Libertarians about
human behaviour might be wrong, its the fact that they might
be right that scares the bejesus out a me. I, for one, dont want to
live in a society which has elevated greed to be its highest virtue.

cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/03/85)

> > There are many motivations besides self-interest and greed --- but there
> > are no so certain (sic) to be present in almost all people, almost all the
> > time.  The socialists assume that most people will look out for the interests
> > of the society as a whole; libertarians assume that most people will
> > look out for their own interests.
> >
> >					Clayton Cramer
> 
> Not quite.  The socialists assume that people will *not* look out
> for the interests of society as a whole, exactly what you ascribe to
> the libertarian position.  The difference is that the socialists assume
> that the interests of society as a whole *should* be looked after, and
> since they think no one else will, they rightly or wrongly expect 
> government to do so.
> 
The non-competitive environment of a socialist system creates tremendous
opportunities for fraud and corruption, since a state-owned enterprise
is in no danger of going bankrupt.  Socialists have long assumed that
under the influence of socialism, man will become less corrupt.  The
Soviet Union, for example, talks a lot about creating a "True Socialist
Man", who is concerned first for the society, and secondarily for himself,
because they recognize that individual self-interest makes their whole
system collapse in corruption and bribery.  (As Russians who have moved
here tell me, lying and cheating are necessary to get some of the 
necessities of life, and most of the luxuries.  In America, while lying
and cheating are common, they aren't *necessary* for simple survival ---
although some people persuade themselves this is so.)

Study socialism more --- it *does* assume that man will become more perfect
because of socialism.  (This is also the assumption of the turn-of-the-
century progressives in this country.  The name is derived from a belief
in human progess --- that people are getting better.)

> >                                         If the libertarian is wrong, and
> > people are not entirely greedy, those positive attitudes will lead them
> > to private social activity for the good of the less fortunate.  
> 
> And if your libertarian is *correct*, private social activity will *not* 
> replace the role of government, and the poor bastards will just starve in 
> the dark.  
> 
> Ergo your libertarianism only works if it is fundamentally in error.
> 
> 						Baba ROM DOS

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.

mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/05/85)

>/* bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) /  3:46 pm  Jun 29, 1985 */

>Its not the fact that the assumptions of Libertarians about
>human behaviour might be wrong, its the fact that they might
>be right that scares the bejesus out a me. I, for one, dont want to
>live in a society which has elevated greed to be its highest virtue.

So even if the libertarian system would work best, i.e., give people
what they want most, you would forcefully impose your subjective
views on everyone else, right?

Just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly.

						Mike Sykora

baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (07/06/85)

>>>There are many motivations besides self-interest and greed --- but there
>>>are no so certain (sic) to be present in almost all people, almost all the
>>>time.  The socialists assume that most people will look out for the interests
>>>of the society as a whole; libertarians assume that most people will
>>>look out for their own interests.
>>>
>>>					Clayton Cramer
>> 
>> Not quite.  The socialists assume that people will *not* look out
>> for the interests of society as a whole, exactly what you ascribe to
>> the libertarian position.  The difference is that the socialists assume
>> that the interests of society as a whole *should* be looked after, and
>> since they think no one else will, they rightly or wrongly expect 
>> government to do so.
>> 
>>					Baba ROM DOS
>
> The non-competitive environment of a socialist system creates tremendous
> opportunities for fraud and corruption, since a state-owned enterprise
> is in no danger of going bankrupt.  Socialists have long assumed that
> under the influence of socialism, man will become less corrupt.  The
> Soviet Union, for example, talks a lot about creating a "True Socialist
> Man", who is concerned first for the society, and secondarily for himself,
> because they recognize that individual self-interest makes their whole
> system collapse in corruption and bribery.
>
>					Clayton Cramer

This is a non-rebuttal.  Even if the Soviet Union were a universally
accepted paradigm of socialism, if socialists feel that "most people 
will look out for the interests of society as a whole", as you stated in 
your earlier posting excerpted above, why would they need to create a 
"True Socialist Man"?  Wouldn't they already have one?  Why would they 
worry about the effects of individual self-interest on their system?  
Why would they see a need to coerce anyone?  

						Baba

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

>/**** inmet:net.politics.t / pedsgd!bob /  3:46 pm  Jun 29, 1985 ****/
>Its not the fact that the assumptions of Libertarians about
>human behaviour might be wrong, its the fact that they might
>be right that scares the bejesus out a me. I, for one, dont want to
>live in a society which has elevated greed to be its highest virtue.
>/* ---------- */
>

Then what are you doing in New Jersey? :-)

Seriously, libertarians do not attempt to enshrine greed.  We merely
observe that people have differing goals, and different ideas on how
to pursue those goals.   We're trying to create a society in which people
may pursue those goals with as much freedom as possible.

That greed generates most of the hustle behind the pursuit of most of
the goals does not mean that libertarians LIKE greed, but merely
that we must deal with it.  In particular, turning it into a positive
social force by limiting greedy people's ability to ravage seems like
a good idea to me. 

Finally, bear in mind that libertarians do not expect greed to 
fund the Salvation Army, or supply great art -- I've no objection
to such things even if they are not created by "greed" (although
some other libertarians object to charity on any grounds), provided
that they do not involve initiation of force or fraud.

mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (07/06/85)

>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 can't have it both ways.  Lots of posters have argued that there
never has been such a thing as a free market, so how can history say
anything about whether people would or would not starve under them?
But there have been millions of people starve under non-socialist regimes.
This goes for both industrialized and non-industrialized countries.
On balance (setting aside deliberate genocide, like Stalin's Ukraine
and Pol Pot's Kampuchea), I would guess that there is less chance of
starving in a Communist country than in an equivalently endowed free-
enterprise one, and far less chance still in a Socialist one.  Some
real statistics might be more useful than appeals to mental models of
idealized history, whether they be mine or anyone else's.

>The non-competitive environment of a socialist system creates tremendous
>opportunities for fraud and corruption, since a state-owned enterprise
>is in no danger of going bankrupt.  Socialists have long assumed that
>under the influence of socialism, man will become less corrupt.  The

Why is the "enterprise" necessarily the appropriate unit for discussion?
The unit of discussion of competition is whatever suits the structure
in which competition is going on.  The "enterprise" is suitable only
where relatively independent enterprises exist.

Individuals may be even more competitive in a Socialist system than in
a free-market system.  They must compete *within* an organization,
with few modes of possible difference from their competition.  In a
free-enterprise economy, an individual can prosper because the company
prospers, without necessarily damaging any *identifiable* other person.
In a large organization, individuals can prosper only at the expense of
their colleagues, and only by finding ways in which they can outperform
their colleagues.  Not everyone can be the best at a particular job,
and those that are not best are tempted to win by unethical means.  It
isn't a phenomenon restricted to socialism, but a function of large
organizations that resist change.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt

cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/09/85)

> >>>There are many motivations besides self-interest and greed --- but there
> >>>are no so certain (sic) to be present in almost all people, almost all the
> >>>time.  The socialists assume that most people will look out for the interests
> >>>of the society as a whole; libertarians assume that most people will
> >>>look out for their own interests.
> >>>
> >>>					Clayton Cramer
> >> 
> >> Not quite.  The socialists assume that people will *not* look out
> >> for the interests of society as a whole, exactly what you ascribe to
> >> the libertarian position.  The difference is that the socialists assume
> >> that the interests of society as a whole *should* be looked after, and
> >> since they think no one else will, they rightly or wrongly expect 
> >> government to do so.
> >> 
> >>					Baba ROM DOS
> >
> > The non-competitive environment of a socialist system creates tremendous
> > opportunities for fraud and corruption, since a state-owned enterprise
> > is in no danger of going bankrupt.  Socialists have long assumed that
> > under the influence of socialism, man will become less corrupt.  The
> > Soviet Union, for example, talks a lot about creating a "True Socialist
> > Man", who is concerned first for the society, and secondarily for himself,
> > because they recognize that individual self-interest makes their whole
> > system collapse in corruption and bribery.
> >
> >					Clayton Cramer
> 
> This is a non-rebuttal.  Even if the Soviet Union were a universally
> accepted paradigm of socialism, if socialists feel that "most people 
> will look out for the interests of society as a whole", as you stated in 
> your earlier posting excerpted above, why would they need to create a 
> "True Socialist Man"?  Wouldn't they already have one?  Why would they 
> worry about the effects of individual self-interest on their system?  
> Why would they see a need to coerce anyone?  
> 
> 						Baba

Good point.  Let me clarify.  The Soviet Union (and a lot of other
socialists, including the ones who find the Soviet Union embarrassing)
maintain that the capitalist system has created self-interested
individuals, rather than a True Socialist Man.  They believe that by
creating a society in which self-interest in not rewarded, that people
will become less self-interested, and more collective-interested.  While
they acknowledge that there still people with "bourgeois" & "decadent"
attitudes, they believe that progress is being made towards this ideal,
in much the same way that they assert that the Soviet Union is a socialist
society striving to become a communist society.  When it becomes communist
(and everyone is collective-interested, rather than self-interested) the
government will wither away, because it will be unnecessary.

This might be a plausible line of reasoning, except that self-interest
is the result of a couple billion years of evolution, which has fostered
self-interest (or at least clan-interest) rather than collective interest.

Consider a chimpanzee.  If the chimpanzee carries genes that encourage
behavior in the interest of the species, this will further the species.
If that same behavior is detrimental to the interests of the 
individual chimpanzee, and it has no offspring, that behavior (if
genetic) will not be passed on.  Clearly, collective-interest will
be selected against, unless all members of the species benefit each
other more by that behavior than individuals benefit by *not* having
that behavior.  In the long run, the species will be selected for
collective-interest only if self-interest does not conflict.

If the Soviet Union still prevented self-interested people from 
reproducing in the manner that was done in the 1920s and 1930s (i.e.
de-kulakization), the goal of the True Socialist Man might be 
achieved in another 40,000 generations.  In fact, the current
arrangement they have doesn't even do this, and their goal of 
the True Socialist Man is doomed to failure.

cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/09/85)

> 
> >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 can't have it both ways.  Lots of posters have argued that there
> never has been such a thing as a free market, so how can history say
> anything about whether people would or would not starve under them?
> But there have been millions of people starve under non-socialist regimes.
> This goes for both industrialized and non-industrialized countries.
> On balance (setting aside deliberate genocide, like Stalin's Ukraine
> and Pol Pot's Kampuchea), I would guess that there is less chance of
> starving in a Communist country than in an equivalently endowed free-
> enterprise one, and far less chance still in a Socialist one.  Some
> real statistics might be more useful than appeals to mental models of
> idealized history, whether they be mine or anyone else's.
> 
1. We have had, at least in the United States, a *relatively* free market
for most of the time since the Revolution.  (This does not mean that
there have been no subsidies, and no regulation.)

2. A lot non-socialist countries have had famine, but they have been 
countries where the free market wasn't even a goal, much less an 
imperfectly attained reality.

3. Setting aside deliberate genocide is incorrect, because one of the
strengths of a free market is that is impossible to create this sort
of madness (genocide) if the government doesn't regulate food sales.
(Hungry people will mortgage their future, and their kid's future,
if necessary, to eat.  Where the government controls food, this option
can be made unavailable in a way that cannot happen in a free market.)
 
4. I invite statistics on famines throughout history.  There has never
been one in *this* country, and I don't believe there has ever been one
in Canada.  The Soviet Union is not intrinsically worse off in its
steppes than North Americans are in the Great Plains.  (In fact, the
similarities in weather and geography are startling.)

> >The non-competitive environment of a socialist system creates tremendous
> >opportunities for fraud and corruption, since a state-owned enterprise
> >is in no danger of going bankrupt.  Socialists have long assumed that
> >under the influence of socialism, man will become less corrupt.  The
> 
> Why is the "enterprise" necessarily the appropriate unit for discussion?
> The unit of discussion of competition is whatever suits the structure
> in which competition is going on.  The "enterprise" is suitable only
> where relatively independent enterprises exist.
> 
If I understand you correctly, "enterprise" is only important if there
are separate state-owned companies.  I disagree strongly --- if all
companies are owned by the state, there is no difference from all
economic organization being one state-owned company.

> Individuals may be even more competitive in a Socialist system than in
> a free-market system.  They must compete *within* an organization,
> with few modes of possible difference from their competition.  In a
> free-enterprise economy, an individual can prosper because the company
> prospers, without necessarily damaging any *identifiable* other person.
> In a large organization, individuals can prosper only at the expense of
> their colleagues, and only by finding ways in which they can outperform
> their colleagues.  Not everyone can be the best at a particular job,
> and those that are not best are tempted to win by unethical means.  It
> isn't a phenomenon restricted to socialism, but a function of large
> organizations that resist change.
> Martin Taylor

By "unethical means" might you mean socialism?  :-)

I would agree that bigness has great potential for problems, regardless
of the economic organization, but bigness is an intrinsic characteristic
of centralized socialist systems, and decentralized socialist systems
suffer from economy of scale problems (not to mention the political
advantages of centralized control).  Free enterprise is likely to produce
a mix of large (and therefore less efficient) and small companies.  The
mix is dependent on the relative value of economies of scale and 
individual initiative for a particular industry and market.  However,
economy of scale stops at a certain point (below most current 
big corporations), and individual initiative becomes very important.
In a *totally* free market, it is most unlikely that many companies would
be as large as the current giants, many of whom owe their size to
regulatory advantage or their ability to lobby for government contracts.
(Example: part of IBM's bigness stems from its ability to get government
contracts during the Great Depression, when the government's desire
(not need) for tabulating equipment increased because of the regulatory
activities.)

mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/09/85)

>/* mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) /  1:22 pm  Jul  6, 1985 */

>You can't have it both ways.  Lots of posters have argued that there
>never has been such a thing as a free market, so how can history say
>anything about whether people would or would not starve under them?

I don't believe anyone has suggested this.  I suspect what you are
referring to is the response to those who claim that since country X was
non-socialistic and many people starved there, we can conclude that
in a free-market society, typically,  many people will starve.

>But there have been millions of people starve under non-socialist regimes.
>This goes for both industrialized and non-industrialized countries.

Of course, but this alone says nothing about free-market societies.

>On balance (setting aside deliberate genocide, like Stalin's Ukraine
>and Pol Pot's Kampuchea), I would guess that there is less chance of
>starving in a Communist country than in an equivalently endowed free-
>enterprise one, and far less chance still in a Socialist one.

Why do you guess that?  Also, why are you setting aside these examples?
Are they atypical?

>Some
>real statistics might be more useful than appeals to mental models of
>idealized history, whether they be mine or anyone else's.

I don't have the statistics, but here's one example:  the current
crisis in Ethiopea.  As I understand it, the actions of the statist
government there exacerbated the problem.

>Martin Taylor

						Mike Sykora

nrh@inmet.UUCP (07/09/85)

>/**** inmet:net.politics.t / dciem!mmt /  1:22 pm  Jul  6, 1985 ****/
>
>>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 can't have it both ways.  Lots of posters have argued that there
>never has been such a thing as a free market, so how can history say
>anything about whether people would or would not starve under them?

Unless the poster above was one of those who argued that there had
never been free markets, he is NOT trying to have it both ways,
and you should probably either find a reference or apologize.

>But there have been millions of people starve under non-socialist regimes.

Non-socialist does not imply "free markets".  

>This goes for both industrialized and non-industrialized countries.
>On balance (setting aside deliberate genocide, like Stalin's Ukraine
>and Pol Pot's Kampuchea), I would guess that there is less chance of
>starving in a Communist country than in an equivalently endowed free-
>enterprise one, and far less chance still in a Socialist one.  Some
>real statistics might be more useful than appeals to mental models of
>idealized history, whether they be mine or anyone else's.

On what basis do you set them aside?  Are we expected to buy Stalin's
rhetoric (whatever it may have been) about the justice of such a move?
Are we expected to allow that "starvation doesn't count when it's
the result of centralized intent on the part of the nominal government"?
Such situations do not occur where no force is initiated -- where people
are free.  They seem suspiciously common among socialist regimes where
"hoarding" (that is, saving food in case of famine) is ofttimes a crime
against the state.

Some time ago, I posted a list of nations that had been split into
socialist and non-socialist parts.  The list included Viet-Nam (before
the war ended) China, Korea, and Germany.  In each case, the non-socialist
side had the higher per-person GNP.  If you have reliable malnutrition
data for these countries, I'd love to see it.

bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) (07/10/85)

Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ
Keywords: 

In article <2380082@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes:
>>/* bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) /  3:46 pm  Jun 29, 1985 */
>
>>Its not the fact that the assumptions of Libertarians about
>>human behaviour might be wrong, its the fact that they might
>>be right that scares the bejesus out a me. I, for one, dont want to
>>live in a society which has elevated greed to be its highest virtue.
>
>So even if the libertarian system would work best, i.e., give people
>what they want most, you would forcefully impose your subjective
>views on everyone else, right?
>
>Just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly.
>
>						Mike Sykora

No, you didnt. My speculation is that given the type of individual
postulated by libertarians, in a Libertarian society ( as described on
the net ), would result in great benifit to a few at the expense of
nearly everyone else. I cant prove it. I infer this from my observation
of real people and from reading history. I repeat, I cant prove it.
Actually, im a litte embarassed about the my original positng; I had so
wanted to avoid the typical kneejerk net reaction style, but its so
contagious. And a confession. I had at one time considered registering
to vote as a Libertarian, but thought about it for a while, and decided
that if we could count on people behaving rationally, then anarchy
seem preferable. Why have any overhead at all? So I registered as an
independent instead.  Now lets try to start a new debate, how bout this:

1) Three branches of government - War department, Economics Department,
   Sociology Department. Each branch passes legistation by majority
   vote which must be ratified by the other departments.

2) All government officials are selected by some formula including
   competive examination, psycological profile, self-made success, etc.
   Each official is tested annually. Anyone can request an examintaion.
   Actuall criteria to be decided by usenet :-)

3) Compensation for office is similar to what they could earn in industry.

4) Severe penalties for graft.

I await your scorn. bob.

baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (07/11/85)

> There are many motivations besides self-interest and greed --- but there
> are no so certain (sic) to be present in almost all people, almost all the
> time.  The socialists assume that most people will look out for the interests
> of the society as a whole; libertarians assume that most people will
> look out for their own interests.
>
>					Clayton Cramer

I took "socialist" to be used in the sense of antithesis to libertarianism,
as it has been used more-or-less interchangeably with "statist" in previous
libertarian nhetoric.  However, in view of your later explanation:

> Good point.  Let me clarify.  The Soviet Union (and a lot of other
> socialists, including the ones who find the Soviet Union embarrassing)
> maintain that the capitalist system has created self-interested
> individuals, rather than a True Socialist Man.  They believe that by
> creating a society in which self-interest in not rewarded, that people
> will become less self-interested, and more collective-interested.

It is clear that you were contrasting libertarianism with utopian Marxism.

Since none of us who have posted objections to libertarianism has argued 
from such a Lysenkoist perspective, I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you 
brought it up.

						Baba

tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (07/15/85)

In article <2380092@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes:
>I don't have the statistics, but here's one example:  the current
>crisis in Ethiopea.  As I understand it, the actions of the statist
>government there exacerbated the problem.
>
>						Mike Sykora

Not the actions, the nonactions.  The Ethiopian famine was predicted in
the reign of the immortal Haile Selassie ("Jah").  The Dergue, who
took control after Selassie's overthrow, never consolidated a national
authority -- nearly all Ethiopian regions had been fuedally autonomous under
Selassie.  Hence no roads, etc.., and many different tribal, "national"
groups claiming legitimacy in the vacuum, some supported by Somalia and
the US.

A regime which is nearly powerless in the countryside should not be
blamed for famine in the countryside.  And imagine if Haile Selassie
were distributing the food aid, which would be the alternative scenario.
In his entire reign, he never acknowledged that famine existed -- not
even once.

See *The Ethiopian Revolution*, by Jon Halliday and Maxine Molyneux, for
more.  The book is a little too pro-Dergue for my taste, but it explains
the problems of the new Ethiopian regime circa 1973-1980 very well.
(Verso-New Left Press, London).

For two statist regimes which did cure starvation among their people,
look at Tanzania and China.  China's success given its per capita income
makes it stand out in the World Bank statistics.

Tony Wuersch
{amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw

mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (07/17/85)

>>This goes for both industrialized and non-industrialized countries.
>>On balance (setting aside deliberate genocide, like Stalin's Ukraine
>>and Pol Pot's Kampuchea), I would guess that there is less chance of
>>starving in a Communist country than in an equivalently endowed free-
>>enterprise one, and far less chance still in a Socialist one.  Some
>>real statistics might be more useful than appeals to mental models of
>>idealized history, whether they be mine or anyone else's.
>
>On what basis do you set them aside?  Are we expected to buy Stalin's
>rhetoric (whatever it may have been) about the justice of such a move?
>Are we expected to allow that "starvation doesn't count when it's
>the result of centralized intent on the part of the nominal government"?
>Such situations do not occur where no force is initiated -- where people
>are free.  They seem suspiciously common among socialist regimes where
>"hoarding" (that is, saving food in case of famine) is ofttimes a crime
>against the state.
>
>Some time ago, I posted a list of nations that had been split into
>socialist and non-socialist parts.  The list included Viet-Nam (before
>the war ended) China, Korea, and Germany.  In each case, the non-socialist
>side had the higher per-person GNP.  If you have reliable malnutrition
>data for these countries, I'd love to see it.

On the last point, you will note that I distinguished Communist,
Socialist, and free-enterprise in the extract on which you comment;
yet you choose to elide Communist and Socialist.

It was clear in the article to which mine responded that the inefficiency
of Communism was the cause of starvation.  Genocide was not the issue.
I merely gave as my opinion that in normal circumstances Communist
countries were less prone to allow their least fortunate people to
starve than were free-enterprise countries, and that Socialist countries
(meaning much of Western Europe over the last 40 years, and countries
with similar governments) were still less prone to do so.  In case you
are interested, I have a book of photographs of the United States taken
by a Danish photographer (Amerikanske Billeder), which would show you
a USA very different from that which most of us know.  You might not
find it pleasant viewing if you think there is no malnutrition among
the poor (I don't say starvation).
-- 

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)

> > There are many motivations besides self-interest and greed --- but there
> > are no so certain (sic) to be present in almost all people, almost all the
> > time.  The socialists assume that most people will look out for the interests
> > of the society as a whole; libertarians assume that most people will
> > look out for their own interests.
> >
> >					Clayton Cramer
> 
> I took "socialist" to be used in the sense of antithesis to libertarianism,
> as it has been used more-or-less interchangeably with "statist" in previous
> libertarian nhetoric.  However, in view of your later explanation:
> 
The word "socialist" can (and is) used in a lot of different senses.
There is the economic sense, where the state owns the means of production.
There is the social sense, where the the state has the right to control and
regulate people's lives.  While not identical, the economic and social
senses of "socialism" are quite close because if you own the means of
production (which includes housing), you can exercise tremendous control
over the lives of your employees and tenants.

> > Good point.  Let me clarify.  The Soviet Union (and a lot of other
> > socialists, including the ones who find the Soviet Union embarrassing)
> > maintain that the capitalist system has created self-interested
> > individuals, rather than a True Socialist Man.  They believe that by
> > creating a society in which self-interest in not rewarded, that people
> > will become less self-interested, and more collective-interested.
> 
> It is clear that you were contrasting libertarianism with utopian Marxism.
> 
> Since none of us who have posted objections to libertarianism has argued 
> from such a Lysenkoist perspective, I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you 
> brought it up.
> 
> 						Baba

Not in this newsgroup, but take a look in net.politics.  However, the
essential beliefs of the utopian Marxists don't seem dramatically
different.  A lot of people who call themselves "socialists" in this
country, and in Europe, in fact are "liberals" --- in the sense that
they believe in maximum freedom from coercion, consistent with the
common good.  They differ from libertarians in their definitions of
"common good".

I have sensed from reading your postings, Baba, that you more properly fit
in that category than "socialist".

bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) (07/22/85)

Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ
Keywords: 

In article <1634@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes:
>>Some time ago, I posted a list of nations that had been split into
>>socialist and non-socialist parts.  The list included Viet-Nam (before
>>the war ended) China, Korea, and Germany.  In each case, the non-socialist
>>side had the higher per-person GNP.  If you have reliable malnutrition
>>data for these countries, I'd love to see it.
>
>I merely gave as my opinion that in normal circumstances Communist
>countries were less prone to allow their least fortunate people to
>starve than were free-enterprise countries, and that Socialist countries
>(meaning much of Western Europe over the last 40 years, and countries
>with similar governments) were still less prone to do so.  In case you
>-- 
I tend to share Martin's opinion, but admit that it is not based on facts,
or even statistics.
I missed the refrenced posting on Per Capita GNP and would be interested
to see it. However, I think this sort of statistic by itself tends to be
misleading. Some sort of deviation factor need be included, otherwise
a country in which 10% make $1000000/year while 90% make $1000/year
tends to look pretty good.
I personally would like to see statistics on median income, including
value of government services. Of course, this is a much harder thing
to compute. I suspect when you come right down to it, this is what
seperates the socialist from the capitalists, socialists place higher value
on high median income, capitalists prefer high mean income.
>
>Martin Taylor
>{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
>{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt

Bob Weiler.