carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (04/26/85)
>I also note that I like to use "Free Economy" and "capitalist economy" >interchangeably. Over the past couple of months I've noticed that Richard >Carnes et. al. talk about something very different when they speak of >capitalism. For instance, they probably consider government intervention >on behalf of major corporations as quite compatible with capitalism, >while I see it as an anathema to it. To avoid this and other problems, >I'll try to use "Free Economy" in the future to make things a little >clearer. Yes, we should use such terms carefully. Here are two alternative definitions for "capitalism" that are implicit in what I write. This is what Marxists have in mind when they condemn capitalism as inhuman, inefficient, and exploitative. (The following is plagiarized from G. A. Cohen.) "[The first definition] defines capitalism by reference to its dominant production relation: it is the society whose immediate producers own their labor power and no other productive force. It is the economy of free labor, free from serf- or slave-like burdens, free (bereft) of means of production. This is the STRUCTURAL definition. "The alternative, or MODAL definition, refers to the purpose of capitalist production, not the structure in which it occurs. It defines capitalism as the society whose production serves the accumulation of capital. The point of production under capitalism is to use exchange-value [i.e., purchasing power] to produce more exchange-value, and then to use the additional exchange-value to produce still more, and so on." Are these definitions equivalent? Cohen thinks so, but you decide. Now the interesting question arises: How does the Free Economy, as defined by Fagin or McKiernan, relate to capitalism as defined above? Is the Free Economy possibly/necessarily capitalistic? I would be interested in libertarian answers to this question. (Thanks to DKMcK for posting his definition; his earlier posting apparently did not make it to our site.) Richard Carnes
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (04/30/85)
In article <441@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: > >Yes, we should use such terms carefully. Here are two alternative >definitions for "capitalism" that are implicit in what I write. ... > >... it is the society whose immediate >producers own their labor power and no other productive force. ... > >... the society whose production serves the >accumulation of capital. The point of production under capitalism is >to use exchange-value [i.e., purchasing power] to produce more >exchange-value, ... > >...Is the Free Economy possibly/necessarily capitalistic? >... >Richard Carnes The following is by no means definitive; it is merely intended to convey what I mean when I use the term: Capitalism refers to the use of capital instead of labor to produce wealth. A capitalist is thus someone who makes money from what he owns rather than what he does. (It does not matter for this discussion whether the thing owned is physical production machinery or money.) A society is capitalistic to the extent that the people in it are capitalists. A socialist or communist society cannot be capitalistic since people cannot own capital. (It is possible for the society as a whole to be a single, collective capitalist.) A free economy may be capitalistic to an arbitrary extent. Capital, especially if we include "intellectual capital" or knowlege, is necessary to material progress. Capital does not merely represent stored or frozen labor (the Marxian view) as if one had put it into a bag; capital is a labor *amplifier*, such that the the labor required to build the capital, plus the labor to use it, sum to less labor than that necessary to build the same ultimate product "from scratch". The ultimate capitalistic society would be one in which there were no laborers; everyone makes his or her living by the income of their holdings. This may be physically possible in a few decades. If such holdings were privately owned, the people would then be free in almost any reasonable definition of the word--being even without the necessity of engaging in a trade or profession. People in a collectivist society which crossed this watershed in physical capability would, of course, still be slaves. --JoSH
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (04/30/85)
> > Capital, especially if we include "intellectual capital" or knowlege, > is necessary to material progress. Capital does not merely represent > stored or frozen labor (the Marxian view) as if one had put it into a > bag; capital is a labor *amplifier*, such that the the labor required > to build the capital, plus the labor to use it, sum to less labor than > that necessary to build the same ultimate product "from scratch". > > --JoSH Hm. I'm a bit confused here. 2+2=5. It may take less labor TIME to build 5000 widjets using a lathe (including labor time to build the lathe) than to chisel and sand them, but I fail to see how this makes the lathe any less stored labor. Yes, the lathe does increase the productivity of labor. This means, according to the labor theory of value, that the VALUE of an hour of this more productive labor is higher than the VALUE of an hour of the chisler's time. JoSH is correct in emphasizing the heightening of productivity thru various forms of stored labor (physical capital and expertise (knowledge which has been incorporated into an individual)). However, methinks he is pointing this out to discredit Marx. Perhaps he should go back and re-read Volume one of *Capital*. The distinction between labor time and labor value is quite important in figuring things out. -- Jeff Myers The views above may or may not University of Wisconsin-Madison reflect the views of any other Madison Academic Computing Center person or group at UW-Madison. ARPA: uwmacc!myers@wisc-rsch.ARPA UUCP: ..!{ucbvax,allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!myers
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (05/01/85)
In article <1008@uwmacc.UUCP> myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) writes: >Hm. I'm a bit confused here. 2+2=5. It may take less labor TIME to build >5000 widjets using a lathe (including labor time to build the lathe) than >to chisel and sand them, but I fail to see how this makes the lathe any >less stored labor. Yes, the lathe does increase the productivity of >labor. This means, according to the labor theory of value, that the VALUE >of an hour of this more productive labor is higher than the VALUE of an >hour of the chisler's time. > What then is the VALUE of the labor "stored" in the lathe? It depends, obviously, on what you use it for; but the significant point is that it *multiplies* the "value" of the succeeding labor by some factor, rather than merely adding to it. The thing to note is that if you iterate the production of capital, using each generation to help create the next, the result is an *exponential* increase in wealth. This is why capitalism (in my sense) is such hot stuff. >JoSH is correct [in part]. However, methinks he is pointing >this out to discredit Marx... >Jeff Myers The views above may or may not Although I have no scruples against discrediting Marx, the dig at the labor theory of value was really a throwaway remark. I really don't see how anyone who has studied economics can take it (the labor theory) seriously. --JoSH
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (05/01/85)
> The ultimate capitalistic society would be one in which there were no > laborers; everyone makes his or her living by the income of their holdings. > This may be physically possible in a few decades. You make it sound like you expect wealth to materialize out of thin air. So everyone is living off the interest or dividends their wealth provides -- except no one is borrowing money to pay interest on, and no one is running a business for profit to pay dividends from. All the farmers are making their living just by owning their farms, so they don't have to work at growing food anymore. No longer will anyone have to earn a living by building or maintaining housing. The only way I can see your scenario working (with a nonzero population) is if what you call capitalism and what others call socialism actually converge. Gary Samuelson
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (05/01/85)
> > > What then is the VALUE of the labor "stored" in the lathe? It depends, > obviously, on what you use it for; but the significant point is that > it *multiplies* the "value" of the succeeding labor by some factor, > rather than merely adding to it. The thing to note is that if you > iterate the production of capital, using each generation to help > create the next, the result is an *exponential* increase in wealth. > This is why capitalism (in my sense) is such hot stuff. This is why *human labor* is such hot stuff -- the same lathe produced by exploited and non-exploited labor has the same UTILITY value. Many influential economists take the labor theory of value very seriously, which you would have noticed if you had been reading recent postings. jeff m
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (05/05/85)
From JoSH (I have not seen JoSH's complete response to my article, just this excerpt quoted by J. Myers): > Capital, especially if we include "intellectual capital" or knowlege, > is necessary to material progress. Capital does not merely represent > stored or frozen labor (the Marxian view) as if one had put it into a > bag; capital is a labor *amplifier*, such that the the labor required > to build the capital, plus the labor to use it, sum to less labor than > that necessary to build the same ultimate product "from scratch". "Capital" is another term that we have to define carefully. JoSH is using the term in the broad sense of any asset that can generate an income stream for its owner. Marxists use the term in a more restricted sense, namely, exchange-value which is exchanged for the purpose of increasing the exchange-value possessed by its owner. To illustrate the difference, consider the tools used by a gardener to produce vegetables for his own consumption. They would be capital in JoSH's sense, but not in the Marxian sense. But the money an agribusiness lays out on farm machinery for the purpose of making a profit, and the machinery itself, would be capital in both senses. The fact that machines and knowledge increase the productivity of labor is not disputed by anybody so far as I know. What is disputed is the sense in which capital may be said to be "productive." There are two senses in which properties may be predicated of things. "Ronnie is 6' tall" is an example of the first. Ronnie's height is a property he possesses independently of anything else. But the statement "Ronnie is the President" would be meaningless in the absence of a political system containing the office of President. "Being President" does not refer to a property that one possesses independently; rather it is a relational predicate: it means that one stands in a certain relation to other people in a particular political system. It is characteristic of capitalist economists to neglect the implicit relational structure of economic predicates, i.e., to overlook the fact that some important economic predicates are of the second type. Hence "capital is productive," to the capitalist way of thinking, means that capital's power to produce is a faculty inherent in it, a power it possesses autonomously. When a capitalist brings many workers together and their productivity increases more than proportionately to the number of workers, it appears to them as if the extra productive power is due to the *inherent* productivity of capital. Marxists, however, point out that capital is productive solely in virtue of being embodied in a material labor process; its productivity *means* that it stands in a certain relation to other things in a process of physical production; it cannot be reduced to a property which capital possesses independently. An example of the "fetishistic" way of thinking criticized by Marxists is the idea that "money makes money," the idea that interest-bearing capital is autonomously productive. But if all capitalists merely lent their money at interest instead of investing it in production, capitalist production would cease and the source of interest payments would eventually dry up. Richard Carnes
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (05/05/85)
From JoSH: >> The thing to note is that if you >> iterate the production of capital, using each generation to help >> create the next, the result is an *exponential* increase in wealth. >> This is why capitalism (in my sense) is such hot stuff. Yes; this is a central proposition of Marx's theory of history. "Development of the productive forces of social labor is the historical task and justification of capital. This is the way it unconsciously creates the requirements of a higher mode of production." [*Capital* III] When these requirements are attained and socialism (in Marx's sense) becomes possible, capitalism loses its rationale and becomes a barrier or fetter to further human development. Then capitalism is revealed as "merely a historical necessity, a necessity for the development of productive power from a definite historical starting-point or basis, but in no way an *absolute* necessity of production," according to comrade Karl. [*Grundrisse*] From Jeff Myers: >Many influential economists take the labor theory of value very >seriously. Yes, although I am quite skeptical of the LTV myself. There is no consensus at all among leftists on the LTV in its various forms. An important recent discussion of issues related to the LTV is Ian Steedman's *Marx After Sraffa*. In any case it is not necessary to accept the LTV to accept and build on Marx's insights in other areas. In particular the claim that capitalism is exploitative can be made independently of the LTV. Richard Carnes
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (05/06/85)
> > An example of the "fetishistic" way of thinking criticized by > Marxists is the idea that "money makes money," the idea that > interest-bearing capital is autonomously productive. But if all > capitalists merely lent their money at interest instead of investing > it in production, capitalist production would cease and the source of > interest payments would eventually dry up. > > Richard Carnes Here, here! This gets to the heart of the matter directly (without a pound of flesh being necessary). jeff m
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (05/06/85)
Just to add a historical point to Richard Carne's comment: > > It is characteristic of capitalist economists to neglect the implicit > relational structure of economic predicates, i.e., to overlook the > fact that some important economic predicates are of the second type. > Hence "capital is productive," to the capitalist way of thinking, > means that capital's power to produce is a faculty inherent in it, a > power it possesses autonomously. When a capitalist brings many > workers together and their productivity increases more than > proportionately to the number of workers, it appears to them as if > the extra productive power is due to the *inherent* productivity of > capital. Marxists, however, point out that capital is productive > solely in virtue of being embodied in a material labor process; its > productivity *means* that it stands in a certain relation to other > things in a process of physical production; it cannot be reduced to > a property which capital possesses independently. > > An example of the "fetishistic" way of thinking criticized by > Marxists is the idea that "money makes money," the idea that > interest-bearing capital is autonomously productive. But if all > capitalists merely lent their money at interest instead of investing > it in production, capitalist production would cease and the source of > interest payments would eventually dry up. > > Richard Carnes For example, this type of rampant speculation is precisely what happened at the end of the Twenties before the Great Crash hit. Investors were worth a million dollars- all on paper. The fact was that there was really no backing for this presumed wealth and that in fact much of it was simply inflated value based on speculation and not based upon actual material or social values. Personally, I am afraid that the same sort of economic collapse could happen again. There is an enormous amount of money owed in personal credit, there are also enormous debts owed by Third World countries, and there is the current mania of corporate takeovers which have no objective other than short-term profits and speculative profits. T Boone Pickens and his fellow corporate pirates have no concern to actually *run* a company: all they want to do is raid it, get as much money as they can, and leave the skeleton to the management and stockholders to try to salvage. Last year the SEC also further reduced the margin necessary to buy stocks saying the controls applied after the Stock Market Crash were no longer necessary. And who is supposed to stand behind stock market margins, savings and loans, major banks with Third World creditors and banks with loans to farmers about to go under? The Federal Government with a debt so big the fastest growing portion of the Federal budget is simply interest on the national debt. It is interesting that ten years ago the Marxist James O'Connor wrote the book "The Fiscal Crisis of the State" stating that one of major coming contradictions in the Capitalist system was the burden of maintaining the infrastructure needed for corporations without charging those corporations to maintain that infrastructure. We see this problem and contradiction coming home to roost in spades with Reagan's 1981 tax bonanza for corporations which is the cause of the current unprecedented deficits. (along with the system of "military keynesianism" in which the solution to inadequate demand is similar to Keynes prescription to dig holes and fill them in: only the twist is to build bombs which have no use except not to be used and then replace them with bigger or better bombs with no use except not to be used) I may be wrong (I was wrong about the latest economic recovery) but my gut feeling is that our economy is in very real trouble. tim sevener whuxl!orb
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (05/07/85)
I tried to send a copy of my original article to Mr. Carnes, but it was rejected by someplace along the 13-site netpath his address had accumulated by the time any messages get here... Sorry, Rich-- you doped out what I said just about right anyway. I think that the major difference between our conceptions of capital stands in the relation of the owner (capitalist) to capital. You are right in saying that I consider a workingman's tools to be capital. A point worth asking is, do you consider someone not to be a capitalist if he owns the capital? Or is something not capital if it is used by the person who owns it? I would not agree to such a definition. --JoSH
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (05/07/85)
In article <828@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: (quoting me) >> The ultimate capitalistic society would be one in which there were no >> laborers; everyone makes his or her living by the income of their holdings. >> This may be physically possible in a few decades. > >You make it sound like you expect wealth to materialize out >of thin air. So everyone is living off the interest or dividends >their wealth provides ... >Gary Samuelson As usual, subtlety falls flat on the net. I thought it was obvious I was referring to automation. --JoSH
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (05/07/85)
In article <1015@uwmacc.UUCP> myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) writes: (quoting me) >> [A lathe] *multiplies* the "value" of the succeeding labor by some factor, >> rather than merely adding to it. The thing to note is that if you >> iterate the production of capital, using each generation to help >> create the next, the result is an *exponential* increase in wealth. >> This is why capitalism (in my sense) is such hot stuff. > >This is why *human labor* is such hot stuff -- the same lathe produced by >exploited and non-exploited labor has the same UTILITY value. Human labor may be hot stuff, but this is not why. Directly ends-oriented labor produces value in an arithmetic progression: if you can whittle a thousand balusters in a year, you can whittle 2000 in two years or 3000 in three years. If instead you use the first year to build machines that multiply your productivity 100-fold, you can produce 200,000 balusters in the succeeding two years; if you spend the first year building machine- making machines, and the second using them to make 100 times as many machines, the third year you make 10,000,000 balusters. Using the "*human labor*" method you will accumulate 10,000 balusters in ten years; using the capitalist method you will make 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in the tenth year. If capitalism were allowed to flourish, everyone in the world would soon be rich; under the socialist regime of squabbling over the pieces of an ever-shrinking pie, we will all soon be utterly equal in wretched poverty. >Many influential economists take the labor theory of value very seriously, >which you would have noticed if you had been reading recent postings. > >jeff m I haven't seen a coherent account yet-- perhaps you'd like to provide one? --JoSH ps-- a baluster is one of the (often lathe-turned) vertical posts which support a bannister rail.
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (05/07/85)
-- > ...If instead you use the first year to build > machines that multiply your productivity 100-fold, you can produce > 200,000 balusters in the succeeding two years; if you spend the > first year building machine-making machines, and the second using > them to make 100 times as many machines, the third year you make > 10,000,000 balusters. Using the "*human labor*" method you will > accumulate 10,000 balusters in ten years; using the capitalist > method you will make 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in the tenth year. > If capitalism were allowed to flourish, everyone in the world would > soon be rich; under the socialist regime of squabbling over the > pieces of an ever-shrinking pie, we will all soon be utterly equal > in wretched poverty. > > --JoSH Surely you jest. Even Marx dealt with that kind of scheme. So did Ponzi. Capitalism has its strong points, but the misery brought about by boom-and-bust overproduction is not one of them. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 07 May 85 [18 Floreal An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (05/08/85)
> In article <828@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: > (quoting me) > >> The ultimate capitalistic society would be one in which there were no > >> laborers; everyone makes his or her living by the income of their holdings. > >> This may be physically possible in a few decades. > > > >You make it sound like you expect wealth to materialize out > >of thin air. So everyone is living off the interest or dividends > >their wealth provides ... > >Gary Samuelson > As usual, subtlety falls flat on the net. Rather than my inability to understand your "subtlety," consider the possibility that the problem might be your obscurity. > I thought it was obvious I was referring to automation. > --JoSH "Holdings" usually refers to either land or securities (I looked it up, just to be sure), not machinery. But the change doesn't help. There will still be laborers (machine operators), unless you think that the machines will be able to read minds (I hope not -- meaning I hope that machines will not be able to do that). Even supposing that literally everything can be automated, how will it come about that everyone will own enough machinery to provide a living? In particular, how will a newborn acquire money making machinery? Gary Samuelson
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/09/85)
>/* gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) / 10:03 am May 7, 1985 */ >Surely you jest. Even Marx dealt with that kind of scheme. So did >Ponzi. Capitalism has its strong points, but the misery brought >about by boom-and-bust overproduction is not one of them. >ken perlow ***** ***** Misery brought about by overproduction???? Misery for who???
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (05/09/85)
In article <1906@topaz.ARPA> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: > Human labor may be hot stuff, but this is not why. Directly ends-oriented > labor produces value in an arithmetic progression: if you can whittle > a thousand balusters in a year, you can whittle 2000 in two years or > 3000 in three years. If instead you use the first year to build machines > that multiply your productivity 100-fold, you can produce 200,000 balusters > in the succeeding two years; if you spend the first year building machine- > making machines, and the second using them to make 100 times as many > machines, the third year you make 10,000,000 balusters. Using the > "*human labor*" method you will accumulate 10,000 balusters in ten years; > using the capitalist method you will make 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 > in the tenth year. If capitalism were allowed to flourish, everyone > in the world would soon be rich; under the socialist regime of squabbling > over the pieces of an ever-shrinking pie, we will all soon be utterly equal > in wretched poverty. Why do you imply that socialists are incapable of increasing productivity this way? Why do you imply capitalists are incapable of squabbling over dividing the pie, shrinking or otherwise? -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (05/14/85)
In article <531@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >In article <1906@topaz.ARPA> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: >> ... If capitalism were allowed to flourish, everyone >> in the world would soon be rich; under the socialist regime of squabbling >> over the pieces of an ever-shrinking pie, we will all soon be utterly equal >> in wretched poverty. > >Why do you imply that socialists are incapable of increasing productivity >this way? Why do you imply capitalists are incapable of squabbling over >dividing the pie, shrinking or otherwise? >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh Squabbling over dividing the pie goes with the concept that the pie should be divided in the first place; in a free market such behavior is known as "theft" and is not allowed. It is a free market that allows capitalism to flourish; a socialist order, though in some sense capable of being capitalist, generally supresses it. Say we start a society off with everyone equally rich. We secretly mark ahead of time those who tend to save and invest, "a"; and those who do not, "b". We run the society for a while under the rules that a person's income corresponds to his productivity. We note, strangely enough, that the people marked "a" tend to be wealthier than those marked "b". Thus any egalitarian redistribution would have to take money away from those who were more likely to have invested it, and given it to those who were less likely to. --JoSH
ec120bgt@sdcc3.UUCP (ANDREW VARE) (05/26/85)
In article <449@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>, carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: > From JoSH: > >> The thing to note is that if you > >> iterate the production of capital, using each generation to help > >> create the next, the result is an *exponential* increase in wealth. > >> This is why capitalism (in my sense) is such hot stuff. > > Yes; this is a central proposition of Marx's theory of history. > "Development of the productive forces of social labor is the > historical task and justification of capital. This is the way it > unconsciously creates the requirements of a higher mode of > production." [*Capital* III] When these requirements are attained > and socialism (in Marx's sense) becomes possible, capitalism loses > its rationale and becomes a barrier or fetter to further human > development. Then capitalism is revealed as "merely a historical > necessity, a necessity for the development of productive power from a > definite historical starting-point or basis, but in no way an > *absolute* necessity of production," according to comrade Karl. > [*Grundrisse*] > > Richard Carnes The difference then becomes: Does the government know best how to plan the wealth allocation? Or do we think each citizen is rational enough to excersize his/her own market decisions? Perhaps more meaningfully, do we allow the government to control technology access, means of production, etc. and sacrifice the freedoms now in our posession for potential economic growth? Am I making sense? Andrew T. Vare
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (05/30/85)
In article <2876@sdcc3.UUCP>, ec120bgt@sdcc3.UUCP (ANDREW VARE) writes: > > development. Then capitalism is revealed as "merely a historical > > necessity, a necessity for the development of productive power from a > > definite historical starting-point or basis, but in no way an > > *absolute* necessity of production," according to comrade Karl. > > [*Grundrisse*] > > > > Richard Carnes > > The difference then becomes: Does the government know best how to > plan the wealth allocation? Or do we think each citizen is rational > enough to excersize his/her own market decisions? Perhaps more > meaningfully, do we allow the government to control technology > access, means of production, etc. and sacrifice the freedoms now in > our posession for potential economic growth? > Am I making sense? > > Andrew T. Vare The above statement from Rich is coyly unrevealing about whether a particular alternative to capitalism would really be better. It just says that alternatives are possible, with an implication that some alternative might avoid the usual systemic prejudices to which most capitalisms fall prey. Of course, the strategic question of how to get there from here gets shortest shrift in the academic world. Leave that to the neo-Leninists (any around?). Andy's questions are apropos here, but I don't think they make much pragmatic sense. That is, they're more rhetorical "I know the answer, do YOU?" than constructive. However ... let's belabor the point again. "Does the government know best ..." Answer no? I'd say it DEPENDS both on the government AND the (survey, feedback, etc.) information it's getting or collecting. And if you think all governments are bad, then I sure don't want you in my government. You'll be the first to go corrupt, according to the social scientists (a lesson for the Reaganauts). Let's have some realistic optimism here, eh? Good government exists in MANY countries, East and West. "Or do we think each citizen is rational enough to excersize(sp) his/her own market decisions?" "We"? Is that a rhetorical flourish? Leave me out. I'm not rational enough to choose between Excedrin and Anacin. Are you? (But I don't like the new Coke -- I know that) I don't WANT to make every decision and take every risk in my life. A lot of these decisions are a BIG waste of my time when they could be made by others with more information, wisdom, and increasing returns to scale. That's a fully rational wish of MINE that this government won't let me make. Where's the market in governments? Obviously, the answer to the above "rational" question is undecidable on a general basis. It depends upon the particular market and the particular good. But wherever the answer is NO, I'd like to see some other body make a decision -- either help me out or kick me in the butt. I guess that makes me a socialist. (Some days, I think most people are greedy, lazy and stupid, but capitalism only helps the greedy ones. Ideals run amuck. Which is the cynic here? :-)) The last of these "questions" begging for obvious answers is whether we want to sacrifice our freedoms to determine our technology and mode of production to some alien government authority. There's that "we" again! And an "our" too. Here it's nationalism run amuck. Lacking a big wad of bucks or demand credits in a bank, I'd have more "freedom" to determine our technology or our mode of production in (almost)ANY socialist economy than in this one. I have NO freedom to determine or to meaningfully participate in these big kinds of decisions under US-style capitalism. Do I want that kind of freedom? Sure. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/01/85)
>/* tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) / 11:32 pm May 29, 1985 */ >"Does the government know best ..." Answer no? I'd say it DEPENDS both >on the government AND the (survey, feedback, etc.) information it's getting >or collecting. And if you think all governments are bad, then I sure don't >want you in my government. How can a relatively small number of people (i.e., the gov't.) know what's best for millions? Moreover, how can anyone know what's best for anyone else? The notion that the gov't. can know is absurd. Government seems to attract people with two basic attitudes towards it. One group of people wants to use gov't. to help others, and the other group wants to exercise power over people. It seems that the nature of democracy is such that the latter group typically ends up in control. >You'll be the first to go corrupt, according >to the social scientists (a lesson for the Reaganauts). On what evidence is this conclusion based? >Let's have some >realistic optimism here, eh? Good government exists in MANY countries, >East and West. Good compared to what? The majority of the earth's population is oppressed by their governments. Unfortunately, the bad gov'ts are the rule, and the good the exception. It's absurd to be optimistic in the face of the violence perpetrated by gov'ts. within the past century. >I don't WANT to make every decision and take every risk in my life. A lot >of these decisions are a BIG waste of my time when they could be made by >others with more information, wisdom, and increasing returns to scale. >That's a fully rational wish of MINE that this government won't let me >make. Where's the market in governments? You could hire a private firm to make such decisions for you. Unlike gov'ts, private firms are accountable to the market and are not subject to political decision-making. >The last of these "questions" begging for obvious answers is whether >we want to sacrifice our freedoms to determine our technology and >mode of production to some alien government authority. There's that "we" >again! And an "our" too. Here it's nationalism run amuck. Lacking a >big wad of bucks or demand credits in a bank, I'd have more "freedom" to >determine our technology or our mode of production in (almost)ANY socialist >economy than in this one. Where? > I have NO freedom to determine or to meaningfully >participate in these big kinds of decisions under US-style capitalism. You certainly do. Freedom doesn't guarantee you that you will participate, only that no one can stop you if you wish to participate. >Tony Wuersch Mike Sykora
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (06/02/85)
> > > I have NO freedom to determine or to meaningfully > >participate in these big kinds of decisions under US-style capitalism. > > You certainly do. Freedom doesn't guarantee you that you will participate, > only that no one can stop you if you wish to participate. > > >Tony Wuersch > > Mike Sykora ``Freedom doesn't guarantee that you will eat, only that no one can stop you if you have food in your grubby little hands.'' Jeff Myers
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (06/03/85)
In article <183@ubvax.UUCP> tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) writes: >... Where's the market in governments? You should read some of the anarchocapitalist writings; this is exactly what they're touting. >. I have NO freedom to determine or to meaningfully >participate in these big kinds of decisions ["determine our technology or >our mode of production"] under US-style capitalism. > >Do I want that kind of freedom? Sure. > >Tony Wuersch Such "freedom" is usually called "power" and I'm not at all surprised you want it. On the other hand, I'm damn glad you don't have it. --JoSH
gabor@qantel.UUCP (Gabor Fencsik@ex2642) (06/04/85)
> ... Lacking a > big wad of bucks or demand credits in a bank, I'd have more "freedom" to > determine our technology or our mode of production in (almost)ANY socialist > economy than in this one. I have NO freedom to determine or to meaningfully > participate in these big kinds of decisions under US-style capitalism. > Do I want that kind of freedom? Sure. [TONY WUERSCH] Let me see if I got this right. Tony's chain of thought runs as follows: 1. I am an intellectual. 2. Intellectuals have more power under socialism. (As opposed to capitalism where a competing elite - businessmen - hold the power.) 3. Therefore, socialism is preferable to capitalism. Did anything get lost in the the translation? In any case, Tony should be commended for putting his cards on the table. ----- Gabor Fencsik {dual,nsc,hplabs,intelca,}!qantel!gabor
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (06/04/85)
> How can a relatively small number of people (i.e., the gov't.) know > what's best for millions? Moreover, how can anyone know what's best > for anyone else? > Mike Sykora By the same logic, how can everyone know what's best for *themselves*? Baba
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (06/06/85)
In article <449@qantel.UUCP>, gabor@qantel.UUCP (Gabor Fencsik@ex2642) writes: > > ... Lacking a > > big wad of bucks or demand credits in a bank, I'd have more "freedom" to > > determine our technology or our mode of production in (almost)ANY socialist > > economy than in this one. I have NO freedom to determine or to meaningfully > > participate in these big kinds of decisions under US-style capitalism. > > > Do I want that kind of freedom? Sure. [TONY WUERSCH] > > Let me see if I got this right. Tony's chain of thought runs as follows: > > 1. I am an intellectual. > 2. Intellectuals have more power under socialism. (As opposed to capitalism > where a competing elite - businessmen - hold the power.) > 3. Therefore, socialism is preferable to capitalism. > > Did anything get lost in the the translation? In any case, Tony should be > commended for putting his cards on the table. > > ----- > Gabor Fencsik {dual,nsc,hplabs,intelca,}!qantel!gabor There's a sociologist at Wisconsin, Ivan Szelenyi, who was forced to leave Hungary because he and, I think, George Konrad co-authored a book called "The Intellectuals on the Road to Class Power". Szelenyi asks if the natural course of Eastern European socialism is for the intelligensias to take over in the next or subsequent generations. He also suggests that had intellectuals plotted for their rule, they couldn't have plotted better. (Not that they did -- they didn't live in the Eastern Europe of today, remember, when they started agitating.) I read Szelenyi for the first time about two years ago. Wow. I started joking to my left friends that this was exactly what WE were all about -- and, boy, did they NOT like that joke. Szelenyi defends intellectuals on the basis that their rule would be a lot better than businessmen on lots of criteria, mostly hingeing on their shared sense of social obligation, etc.. Some defense. Szelenyi IS a bit of an ironist. (Paul Hollander makes the same critique as Szelenyi, but whereas Szelenyi would shrug and cope, Hollander would likely advocate keeping intellectuals under perpetual surveillence, perhaps. Hollander's intellectual contempt of intellectuals knows no bounds at all.) Intellectuals do spend less on their own personal consumption than businessmen, and they surely ask for less salary. My own judgment on Szelenyi is that his analysis only goes as far as Gabor's -- that intellectuals do better under socialism than under capitalism. I don't think Szelenyi proves that intellectuals could actually rule under socialism as if they were an independent class with interests opposed to other classes, because he can't prove that intellectuals are an independent class. (Not to say that that isn't a VERY popular view in Slavic countries -- Szelenyi says intellectuals were a separate social category both before and after socialism. But a separate social category still does not quite a class make.) Szelenyi seems compelled to admit that intellectuals in power would have to maintain all the traditional "working class programs" -- guaranteed employment, cheap housing and food, cradle-to-grave health care, etc. This weakens his case considerably. So his focus on intellectuals in socialism is entirely appropriate, especially in Eastern Europe, but his tag to sell the issue -- intellectuals as a new ruling class -- is only that, a tag. Intellectuals in socialist countries cannot become a new bourgeoisie. I think intellectuals under socialism are tied to class-related specialties just as much as intellectuals under capitalism. That is, under both systems intellectuals are part of an ambiguous professional petty-bourgeoisie, who can stand for and reinforce other class forces but find it almost impossible to stand for themselves alone against all other classes. The dream of intellectuals ruling is sort of a diabolic fantasy, though, worth indulging in salons and the like. This kind of fantasy civil servants have all the time. It's the civil servant's wet dream. William F. Buckley, for instance. He calls his talk show "Firing Line". *** A PERSONAL COMMENT *** I agree with all of Gabor's points. What I don't understand is his backhanded compliment that I am "putting my cards on the table". If he means that I'm just slightly out for myself in favoring socialism to capitalism, I might agree except that were I mainly out for myself to rule, I'd become a businessman and, perhaps, join the libertarians or apply for US government subsidies. I haven't done that yet, and it's not in my plans. I'd rather be an intellectual than rule under capitalism, not because I'm forced to, but by my own choice. Maybe now I'm plotting on my behalf where I may once have plotted on the behalf of others. To that, I can only plead that this would be a double bind (damned if i do and damned if I didn't) argument. I don't respond to double bind arguments directly, for the obvious reasons. However, I held just about the same opinions on socialism before and after reading Szelenyi. Was my selflessness contaminated by learning that intellectuals do well under socialist regimes? Should that effect objectively good arguments for socialism (which I prefer)? No. *** END OF PERSONAL COMMENT *** Yes, socialism is a system where intellectuals gain relative to capitalism. So what? Consider this: intellectuals would gain under ANY EXTENSION OF DEMOCRACY. Simply because intellectuals have the communicative skills needed to be more persuasive, and the value of persuasiveness increases as DEMOCRACY increases. Anyone, such as myself, who wants more democracy and more significant public discussion of important economic and political questions, has to face the problem that an increase in the power of intellectuals is a likely result of the success of my program. More democracy is a good idea, and not all good ideas have to be advocated by saints or patrons. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/06/85)
>/* baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) / 4:00 pm Jun 4, 1985 */ >By the same logic, how can everyone know what's best for *themselves*? Because each person CAN know what he really wants, even tho he MAY not know. Others can never KNOW what another wants, except if he/she communicates this to them. Of course, it is arrogant and presumptuous to say "I know what's best for you," (except of course when dealing with your own young child), as well as a manifestation of a nauseating personal quality. Mike Sykora
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (06/07/85)
In article <286@spar.UUCP> baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) writes: >> How can a relatively small number of people (i.e., the gov't.) know >> what's best for millions? Moreover, how can anyone know what's best >> for anyone else? >> Mike Sykora > >By the same logic, how can everyone know what's best for *themselves*? > > Baba All other things being equal, every knows what's best for themselves, better than someone else does. This does not mean that anyone either (a) understands his own needs perfectly, or (b) understands how to meet them perfectly. But most people understand their own needs and their own abilities better than anyone else does. --JoSH
wfl@maxvax.UUCP (w linke) (06/07/85)
[] >> How can a relatively small number of people (i.e., the gov't.) know >> what's best for millions? Moreover, how can anyone know what's best >> for anyone else? >> Mike Sykora > >By the same logic, how can everyone know what's best for *themselves*? > > Baba That doesn't look like the same logic to me. Since it does to you, it's evident that the real disagreement is metaphysical/ethical; namely, what is the "good"? Clearly, if you don't think people can know what's good for themselves, your basic values have nothing to do with an individual's Pursuit of Happiness (not to mention Life and Liberty.) Do you place the highest value on your individual life (and thus, by rational extension, on the lives of others) or do you value something other than life, to which individual lives may be sacrificed? W. F. Linke
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (06/07/85)
>>> How can a relatively small number of people (i.e., the gov't.) know >>> what's best for millions? Moreover, how can anyone know what's best >>> for anyone else? >> Mike Sykora >> >> By the same logic, how can everyone know what's best for *themselves*? >> >> Baba > > Because each person CAN know what he really wants, even tho he MAY > not know. Others can never KNOW what another wants, except if he/she > communicates this to them. > > Of course, it is arrogant and presumptuous to say "I know what's best > for you," (except of course when dealing with your own young child), > as well as a manifestation of a nauseating personal quality. > > Mike Sykora You weren't talking about what people *want*. You were talking about what is "best" for people. I, for one, recognize a distinction between the two in human affairs. In a world populated with rational, omniscient beings, there would be none. It is indeed arrogant to say "I know what's best for you". It is also arrogant to say "I know what's best for me". If you acknowledge that a young child does not understand his self-interest, where do you draw the line? At 8 years of age? At 14? At 21? The fact of the matter is that everyone has an incomplete understanding of their own self-interest. And sometimes other people really do know better than we what our self-interest is in various particulars (doctors, lawyers, accountants, coaches, guides, etc.). If this were not so, the issue would be a good deal more clear-cut. Baba
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/08/85)
>/* baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) / 4:28 pm Jun 7, 1985 */ >You weren't talking about what people *want*. You were talking about >what is "best" for people. I, for one, recognize a distinction between >the two in human affairs. They are not different. X may have a set of goals, Z, that X wants to achieve and a certain value X places on the achievement of each of the goals in Z. X will achieve some subset of these goals. X would like to achieve that subset of goals, Y, such that the sum of the values of the goals in Y is maximal over all possible subsets of Z. Note that there may be certain goals in Z that cannot possibly be in the same subset. The achievement of Y is clearly what X wants, though he/she may not be aware of it. This is also what is best for X. >It is indeed arrogant to say "I know what's best for you". It is also >arrogant to say "I know what's best for me". Why arrogant? You are not arrogating anything that is not already yours! If you are wrong, you bear the cost of the mistake. >If you acknowledge that a >young child does not understand his self-interest, where do you draw the >line? At 8 years of age? At 14? At 21? As you mentioned, we live in a less than perfect world. For purposes of legality it is necessary that we draw the line somewhere. I can't say I know exactly where to draw it, but the age of 18 at most seems reasonable. That doesn't mean that I think that everyone knows what's best for him/herself at this age, but that we cannot rely on anyone else to know this. In addition, if we rely on others to tell us what is best for us, we will never learn to know it ourselves. >The fact of the matter is that >everyone has an incomplete understanding of their own self-interest. Of course. Otherwise life would be incredibly simple pschologically. But if I have an incomplete understanding of myself, how much more so everyone else. >And >sometimes other people really do know better than we what our self-interest >is in various particulars (doctors, lawyers, accountants, coaches, guides, >etc.). Those you cited are technicians. You tell them what you want, and they tell you how to achieve it. They don't (or shouldn't) presume to know better than you what your goals are in life. How could they know?? > Baba Mike
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (06/09/85)
In article <2380027@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: >>/* baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) / 4:28 pm Jun 7, 1985 */ >>You weren't talking about what people *want*. You were talking about >>what is "best" for people. I, for one, recognize a distinction between >>the two in human affairs. > >They are not different. X may have a set of goals, Z, that X wants to >achieve and a certain value X places on the achievement of each of the >goals in Z. X will achieve some subset of these goals. X would like to >achieve that subset of goals, Y, such that the sum of the values of the >goals in Y is maximal over all possible subsets of Z. Note that there may >be certain goals in Z that cannot possibly be in the same subset. The >achievement of Y is clearly what X wants, though he/she may not be aware >of it. This is also what is best for X. Not necessarily. What I want, even the rather abstract "achievement of Y", may not really be best for me. What is best for me is something I discover (not invent) through experience; and I may (and often do) discover that my goals were mistaken. -- Paul V. Torek, Iconbuster-In-Chief
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (06/10/85)
> > ... Lacking a > > big wad of bucks or demand credits in a bank, I'd have more "freedom" to > > determine our technology or our mode of production in (almost)ANY socialist > > economy than in this one. I have NO freedom to determine or to meaningfully > > participate in these big kinds of decisions under US-style capitalism. > > > Do I want that kind of freedom? Sure. [TONY WUERSCH] > > Let me see if I got this right. Tony's chain of thought runs as follows: > > 1. I am an intellectual. > 2. Intellectuals have more power under socialism. (As opposed to capitalism > where a competing elite - businessmen - hold the power.) > 3. Therefore, socialism is preferable to capitalism. > > Did anything get lost in the the translation? > Gabor Fencsik {dual,nsc,hplabs,intelca,}!qantel!gabor Yes, Tony's major point was lost. That point was that under democratic control one can have an impact on important decisions. In corporations run by an elite few owners and managers there is no impact. There is also often more *freedom* under public ownership. For example: shopping malls, since they are privately owned, have taken it as their right to deny the public the right of free speech and assembly in such malls. Those advocating viewpoints which the mall's management disagrees with have been kicked out - "we own the mall, we can kick anybody out we choose, free speech or not". On public streets there are no such restrictions - since they are public, the rights of free speech and assembly must be respected whether public officials like it or not. Personally I am *very* glad there are still many such places left, as well as public parks, public libraries, and public monuments and museums. "As I was walking I saw a sign up the sign said "No Trespassing" But the other side of the sign said Nothin' That sign was made for you and me!" Woodrow Wilson Guthrie tim sevener whuxl!orb
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (06/10/85)
> [] > >> How can a relatively small number of people (i.e., the gov't.) know > >> what's best for millions? Moreover, how can anyone know what's best > >> for anyone else? > >> Mike Sykora > > > >By the same logic, how can everyone know what's best for *themselves*? > > > > Baba > > That doesn't look like the same logic to me. Since it does to you, > it's evident that the real disagreement is metaphysical/ethical; namely, > what is the "good"? Clearly, if you don't think people can know what's > good for themselves, your basic values have nothing to do with an > individual's Pursuit of Happiness (not to mention Life and Liberty.) > > W. F. Linke I think Baba's point is precisely the opposite of what you claim: that people *indeed do * know what is best for themselves which is why they have supported public education, pollution controls, publicly supported transportation whether roads or other means, public safety measures,etc. What people know is that they can only accomplish certain goals by working *together*. TO think that everybody can be an individualist island to her/himself is not only unrealistic but a nightmare. tim sevener whuxl!orb
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (06/10/85)
In article <2380026@acf4.UUCP>, mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: > >/* baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) / 4:00 pm Jun 4, 1985 */ > > >By the same logic, how can everyone know what's best for *themselves*? > > Because each person CAN know what he really wants, even tho he MAY > not know. Others can never KNOW what another wants, except if he/she > communicates this to them. > > Of course, it is arrogant and presumptuous to say "I know what's best > for you," (except of course when dealing with your own young child), > as well as a manifestation of a nauseating personal quality. > > Mike Sykora Each person may know or may not know. Others may know or may not know. Others know to the extent that a person communicates to them. A person knows to the extent that he/she communicates to him/herself. So? Why the solipsistic presumption here? -- we all live in a real, material world; we can be "known" by others in virtue of that. And we don't stop communicating just because we want to or not. And why the implication that the knowledge we have of others should be wiped out in political ethics or policy? What does "arrogance and presumption" have to do with TRUTH? Certainly people who don't know others and make critical suggestions are arrogant by assumption, because they're too uninformed to hit the mark enough. They arrogate knowledge to themselves which they don't have. But people who do know others and criticize based on that knowledge often do others a service. And if they are wrong, they get feedback to that effect and learn thereby. How the obtaining and communicating of information about the world, which includes what people are thinking about you and what you are thinking about others, could be labeled as a "nauseating personal quality" is beyond me. Maybe Mike only knows people who abuse the practice. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (06/10/85)
> > >You weren't talking about what people *want*. You were talking about > >what is "best" for people. I, for one, recognize a distinction between > >the two in human affairs. > > The achievement of Y is clearly > what X wants, though he/she may not be aware of it. This is also what is best > for X. > > > Baba > > Mike How convenient! Mike completely bends the meaning of `want' from `a conscious act of desire' to `what is best for'. The libertarian solution to evolution of the English language; ala Newspeak, apparently. jeff m
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (06/11/85)
>/* flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) / 4:38 pm Jun 9, 1985 */ >Not necessarily. What I want, even the rather abstract "achievement of >Y", may not really be best for me. What is best for me is something I >discover (not invent) through experience; and I may (and often do) >discover that my goals were mistaken. Granted. But I suspect that for the majority of people the following is true: I know what's best for me to a greater extent than those around me who claim to. Of course, this is just conjecture. More importantly, on what basis can X reasonably decide, "Y knows better than I what is best for me?" If Y provides X with reasoning that seems sound to X, and X therefore decides to listen to Y's advice, then X is actually deciding for him/herself. If the reasoning seems unsound, then X would be a fool to listen to it (note, I am not talking about advice of a technical nature). If Y refuses to tell X the reasons he thinks the advice is sound, then X should be suspicious and also not listen to him (note, X is not a child here). Mike Sykora
radar@avsdT.BERKNET (Linda Kaplan) (06/12/85)
> In article <286@spar.UUCP> baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) writes: > >> How can a relatively small number of people (i.e., the gov't.) know > >> what's best for millions? Moreover, how can anyone know what's best > >> for anyone else? > >> Mike Sykora > > > >By the same logic, how can everyone know what's best for *themselves*? > > > > Baba > > All other things being equal, every knows what's best for themselves, > better than someone else does. This does not mean that anyone either > (a) understands his own needs perfectly, or (b) understands how to > meet them perfectly. But most people understand their own needs > and their own abilities better than anyone else does. > > --JoSH There is a Womens Action in San Francisco at the CIA office between 11am and 1PM- a legal protest and civil disobedience protesting the trade embargo in Nicaragua.
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (06/12/85)
>>/* baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) / 4:28 pm Jun 7, 1985 */ > >>You weren't talking about what people *want*. You were talking about >>what is "best" for people. I, for one, recognize a distinction between >>the two in human affairs. > >They are not different. X may have a set of goals, Z, that X wants to achieve >and a certain value X places on the achievement of each of the goals in Z. >X will achieve some subset of these goals. X would like to achieve that subset >of goals, Y, such that the sum of the values of the goals in Y is maximal over >all possible subsets of Z. Note that there may be certain goals in Z that >cannot possibly be in the same subset. The achievement of Y is clearly >what X wants, though he/she may not be aware of it. This is also what is best >for X. I'm not sure that it makes sense to talk about things that people want without being aware of it. I *am* sure that what I want is not always in my best interest. Consider cigarettes. When I smoked, I was spending large sums of money to poison myself because I *wanted* to. I wanted to because it was like scratching an itch. The joke was that I had the itch because I smoked in the first place. This is *not* to say that I don't think I should have been given the opportunity to smoke. That's a separate, if related, topic. But it does offer an instantiation of my goals being contrary to my self-interest in a way that was obvious to any reasoning and informed being. Baba
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (06/12/85)
> >/* flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) / 4:38 pm Jun 9, 1985 */ > > >Not necessarily. What I want, even the rather abstract "achievement of > >Y", may not really be best for me. What is best for me is something I > >discover (not invent) through experience; and I may (and often do) > >discover that my goals were mistaken. > > Granted. But I suspect that for the majority of people the following is > true: I know what's best for me to a greater extent than those around me > who claim to. Of course, this is just conjecture. > > Mike Sykora Exactly. It is not much to argue from. To return to your original question: > How can a relatively small number of people (i.e., the gov't.) know > what's best for millions? Moreover, how can anyone know what's best > for anyone else? The answer is that people apprehend other people's self-interest with the same imperfect faculties with which they understand their own. There are simply differences of degree. The logical next question to be discussed is, "How can I trust someone else to *act* in my best interest?". Baba ROM DOS
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (06/12/85)
The whole discussion of "how do I know what's best for me?" or "who knows what's best for me?" as usual frames the question in totally individualist assumptions. The question in politics is not necessarily "what's best for me?" The question is "what's best for *us*? What's best for everybody?" If one simply asks what is best for *me* the answer is often very simple in the short term. If I make over $200,000 a year with few tax shelters to be deleted by Reagan's tax reform plan then it is obviously good for me (at least in the short term) to have my taxes reduced by 10% and particularly to have the basic rate reduced by 50%. But is that *fair*? Is it right? It is best for polluters to continue to pollute and to support the Reagan EPA's new plan to have states enforce pollution laws (meaning they won't be as rigidly enforced because states compete with each other for business breaks). Sure, even the CEO of the company faces the effects of the pollution but he and his company get *all* the increased profits. The costs are spread out over everybody. In the long term the potential destruction of the environment may hurt the CEO's company very greatly. But that is beyond this years balance sheets. If I get welfare then I obviously would like to see welfare benefits increased. It is very simple to calculate in short-term practical terms what is best for *me*. What is *much* more difficult is determining what is best for *everybody*. At what point do the increased costs of pollution control outweigh the benefits? Is it really true that a 10% drop in the average taxes paid by the wealthy will somehow lead to more jobs and consequent improved economic returns for everybody, including the working class? If not then is not such a tax decrease unfair? Once again by framing the question and its implicit assumptions Libertarians sidetrack truly important issues of politics. tim sevener whuxl!orb
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/12/85)
> >>> How can a relatively small number of people (i.e., the gov't.) know > >>> what's best for millions? Moreover, how can anyone know what's best > >>> for anyone else? > >> Mike Sykora > >> > >> By the same logic, how can everyone know what's best for *themselves*? > >> > >> Baba > > > > Because each person CAN know what he really wants, even tho he MAY > > not know. Others can never KNOW what another wants, except if he/she > > communicates this to them. > > > > Of course, it is arrogant and presumptuous to say "I know what's best > > for you," (except of course when dealing with your own young child), > > as well as a manifestation of a nauseating personal quality. > > > > Mike Sykora > > You weren't talking about what people *want*. You were talking about > what is "best" for people. I, for one, recognize a distinction between > the two in human affairs. In a world populated with rational, omniscient > beings, there would be none. > > It is indeed arrogant to say "I know what's best for you". It is also > arrogant to say "I know what's best for me". If you acknowledge that a > young child does not understand his self-interest, where do you draw the > line? At 8 years of age? At 14? At 21? The fact of the matter is that > everyone has an incomplete understanding of their own self-interest. And > sometimes other people really do know better than we what our self-interest > is in various particulars (doctors, lawyers, accountants, coaches, guides, > etc.). If this were not so, the issue would be a good deal more clear-cut. > > Baba The individual allows a doctor, lawyer, accountant, et. al. to make decisions for us, and does not sign away his right to make own decisions, should the prescribed course of action seem foolish. The individual can at any time say, "Doctor, your treatment has made me much sicker than I was before. I will go get another opinion." The government requires all people to abide by its decisions; does not allow the individual to withdraw (except by suicide); and insists by your presence within their sovereignty that you accept their decisions. This defines the essential difference between the voluntary delegating of decisionmaking to a doctor, and the involuntary delegation of decisionmaking to a government.
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (06/12/85)
In article <320@spar.UUCP>, baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) writes: > > >/* flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) / 4:38 pm Jun 9, 1985 */ > > > > Granted. But I suspect that for the majority of people the following is > > true: I know what's best for me to a greater extent than those around me > > who claim to. Of course, this is just conjecture. > > > > Mike Sykora > > Exactly. It is not much to argue from. I agree. The only reason to accept such a vague "for the majority of people" statement is because on a particular issue others don't know better. But on many issues others DO know better. Baba gave an example of his smoking heavily in the past. There are lots of these cases, especially as regards health. Maybe we should call this abstract argument "I suspect that I know what's best for me" the argument from ignorance, and add it to the list of bad arguments that Rich Carnes is compiling. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/13/85)
>/* orb@whuxl.UUCP / 12:27 pm Jun 12, 1985 */ >But is that *fair*? Is it right? What constitutes fairness? What makes something right? Why? Until you can answer the first 2 of these, it is of no use discussing these matters. Until you can answer the third, it is of no use discussing these matters with people who disagree with you regarding the answers to the first 2 questions. Mike Sykora
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (06/13/85)
In article <2380028@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: >More importantly, on what basis can X reasonably decide, "Y knows better >than I what is best for me?" If Y provides X with reasoning that seems >sound to X, and X therefore decides to listen to Y's advice, then X is >actually deciding for him/herself. In a particular situation where advice may be given, yes. But, it seems to me, X may rationally think that the collective (or majority) judgement of himself, Y, and Z is a better guide in most cases to what is best for X than X alone, and thereby agree to let Y and Z overrule him if they judge that something is best for X. (And, of course, it could be mutual; X,Y,&Z could all agree to let the trio decide certain sorts of cases of what is best for an individual member.)
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/14/85)
> Yes, Tony's major point was lost. That point was that under democratic > control one can have an impact on important decisions. In corporations > run by an elite few owners and managers there is no impact. > > There is also often more *freedom* under public ownership. For example: > shopping malls, since they are privately owned, have taken it as their > right to deny the public the right of free speech and assembly in such > malls. Those advocating viewpoints which the mall's management disagrees > with have been kicked out - "we own the mall, we can kick anybody out > we choose, free speech or not". On public streets there are no such > restrictions - since they are public, the rights of free speech and > assembly must be respected whether public officials like it or not. > Personally I am *very* glad there are still many such places left, as well > as public parks, public libraries, and public monuments and museums. > > "As I was walking I saw a sign up > the sign said "No Trespassing" > But the other side of the sign said Nothin' > That sign was made for you and me!" > Woodrow Wilson Guthrie > > tim sevener whuxl!orb Mr. Sevener: I have decided that I have a right to free speech and assembly in your residence at any time --- your private ownership is interfering with my desire to hold protest demonstrations against the government. Please let me know when my crowd can come in to a place that you have paid money to either rent or buy, and start using it any way we feel is fit.
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (06/15/85)
>/* flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) / 4:45 pm Jun 13, 1985 */ >In a particular situation where advice may be given, yes. But, it seems >to me, X may rationally think that the collective (or majority) judgement >of himself, Y, and Z is a better guide in most cases to what is best for >X than X alone, and thereby agree to let Y and Z overrule him if they >judge that something is best for X. When I say what is best for X, I don't mean technically, but rather what X should attempt to get out of life. X may not know what is best for him/herself. But if X does not indeed know, then on what basis could X make a decision to trust the decision to Y & Z? Mike Sykora
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/16/85)
>/* tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) / 2:49 pm Jun 10, 1985 */ In article <2380026@acf4.UUCP>, mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: > >/* baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) / 4:00 pm Jun 4, 1985 */ > > >By the same logic, how can everyone know what's best for *themselves*? > > Because each person CAN know what he really wants, even tho he MAY > not know. Others can never KNOW what another wants, except if he/she > communicates this to them. > > Of course, it is arrogant and presumptuous to say "I know what's best > for you," (except of course when dealing with your own young child), > as well as a manifestation of a nauseating personal quality. > > Mike Sykora >Each person may know or may not know. Others may know or may not know. >Others know to the extent that a person communicates to them. A person knows >to the extent that he/she communicates to him/herself. But on waht basis can a person make the decision, Y knows better than I what is best for me? >And why the >implication that the knowledge we have of others should be wiped out >in political ethics or policy? I don't see such an implication. Please elaborate. >What does "arrogance and presumption" have to do with TRUTH? Certainly >people who don't know others and make critical suggestions are arrogant by >assumption, because they're too uninformed to hit the mark enough. They >arrogate knowledge to themselves which they don't have. This type of behavior is arrogant and presumptuous as opposed to saying something on the order of "I think that it would be best for you to do the following, because . . ." Otherwise, the implication is that the one you are attempting to help is incapable of making decisions on such matters, but you are capable. >But people who do know others and criticize based on that knowledge often >do others a service. And if they are wrong, they get feedback to that >effect and learn thereby. Agreed. Note, that in such a case, the advisee is free to ignore the advice. >How the obtaining and communicating of information about the world, which >includes what people are thinking about you and what you are thinking about >others, could be labeled as a "nauseating personal quality" is beyond me. >Maybe Mike only knows people who abuse the practice. Perhaps I implied this, but I did not mean to. What I meant is that the presentation of such advice in a condescending way, as I described above. >Tony Wuersch Mike Sykora
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/16/85)
/* acf4:net.politics.theory / mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) / 4:23 pm Jun 16, 1985 */ >/* tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) / 2:49 pm Jun 10, 1985 */ In article <2380026@acf4.UUCP>, mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: > >/* baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) / 4:00 pm Jun 4, 1985 */ > > >By the same logic, how can everyone know what's best for *themselves*? > > Because each person CAN know what he really wants, even tho he MAY > not know. Others can never KNOW what another wants, except if he/she > communicates this to them. > > Of course, it is arrogant and presumptuous to say "I know what's best > for you," (except of course when dealing with your own young child), > as well as a manifestation of a nauseating personal quality. > > Mike Sykora >Each person may know or may not know. Others may know or may not know. >Others know to the extent that a person communicates to them. A person knows >to the extent that he/she communicates to him/herself. But on waht basis can a person make the decision, Y knows better than I what is best for me? >And why the >implication that the knowledge we have of others should be wiped out >in political ethics or policy? I don't see such an implication. Please elaborate. >What does "arrogance and presumption" have to do with TRUTH? Certainly >people who don't know others and make critical suggestions are arrogant by >assumption, because they're too uninformed to hit the mark enough. They >arrogate knowledge to themselves which they don't have. This type of behavior is arrogant and presumptuous as opposed to saying something on the order of "I think that it would be best for you to do the following, because . . ." Otherwise, the implication is that the one you are attempting to help is incapable of making decisions on such matters, but you are capable. >But people who do know others and criticize based on that knowledge often >do others a service. And if they are wrong, they get feedback to that >effect and learn thereby. Agreed. Note, that in such a case, the advisee is free to ignore the advice. >How the obtaining and communicating of information about the world, which >includes what people are thinking about you and what you are thinking about >others, could be labeled as a "nauseating personal quality" is beyond me. >Maybe Mike only knows people who abuse the practice. Perhaps I implied this, but I did not mean to. What I meant is that the presentation of such advice in a condescending way, as I described above, is a manifestation of a nauseating personal quality. >Tony Wuersch Mike Sykora
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/16/85)
>/* radar@avsdT.BERKNET / 6:54 pm Jun 11, 1985 */ >There is a Womens Action in San Francisco at the CIA office >between 11am and 1PM- a legal protest and civil disobedience >protesting the trade embargo in Nicaragua. It's nice to see those women's supporting the free market so strongly. :-)
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/16/85)
>/* tonyw@ubvax.UUCP / 2:14 pm Jun 12, 1985 */ >But on many issues others DO know better. Baba gave an example of his >smoking heavily in the past. There are lots of these cases, especially >as regards health. This is not a good example. At the time that Baba was smoking, it may indeed have been in his best interest to do so, i.e., the immediate satisfaction of his desire to smoke was important enough for him to risk the health hazards. Who can say for sure? Only Baba, if anyone. However, if he denies that smoking was so important to him, I would be inclined not to believe him, since he smoked anyway. >Maybe we should call this abstract argument "I suspect that I know what's >best for me" the argument from ignorance, and add it to the list of bad >arguments that Rich Carnes is compiling. Perhaps I can only suspect what's best for me. But who can consistently know better, and how? >Tony Wuersch Mike Sykora
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (06/17/85)
In article <2380030@acf4.UUCP>, mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: > When I say what is best for X, I don't mean technically, but rather what X > should attempt to get out of life. X may not know what is best for > him/herself. But if X does not indeed know, then on what basis could X make a > decision to trust the decision to Y & Z? In many strategic situations (where more than one actor is needed to ensure success), an actor's goals may be influenced by what that actor considers as possible. If what is possible depends on the actions or strategies pursued by other parties, such that alliance with those parties helps X, then X may have reason to trust the decision to Y & Z of what the group strategy should be, especially if X has no power over the determination of that strategy anyways. That is, there are many strategies where being a follower is optimal, even if the follower doesn't quite know what's going on. In fact, knowing what is going on may hurt a follower in the sense that the follower's anticipation of leaders' strategies may make the follower a candidate for scapegoating or being passed over due to over-ambitiousness. In the world political situation, most smaller nations fit the above description of X and X's optimal strategy. In lots of organizations too. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (06/18/85)
In article <2380030@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: >X may not know what is best for him/herself. But if X does not indeed know, >then on what basis could X make a decision to trust the decision to Y & Z? Your question makes me think that you are oversimplifying the case by assuming that X either knows completely what is best for himself or does not know at all. But suppose he keeps a mental record of the cases in which both Y and Z have disagreed with X, recommending that he take a different course of action from the one he wound up taking. He notices that Y and Z have been right much more often than not. So, why isn't it perfectly rational for X to trust future decisions to the majority rule of himself and Y and Z? Consider an analogy of investing. A lot of people, myself included, can do better by trusting our decisions to a mutual fund than we would do by using our own judgement. Even if the mutual fund does not allow one to withdraw one's money free of penalty when one disagrees with its strategy, it still might be a rational investment, no?
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/18/85)
I mentioned a few times (tho perhaps you missed it or forgot about it) that I am not talking about technical questions. What I am talking about are fundamental "goals" (not the best term, but a better one eludes me) in life. Since this is essentially a subjective matter, I don't see how Y & Z could make the decision for X, unless X communicated his/her goals to them. But then, it would seem that X already knows what his/her goals are (I realize this may well be arguable). In any event, if X doesn't know what his/her goals are, how can he/she judge the merits of (Y & Z)'s past decisions. Mike Sykora
gabor@qantel.UUCP (Gabor Fencsik@ex2642) (06/20/85)
In <194@ubvax.UUCP> Tony Wuersch writes: > Yes, socialism is a system where intellectuals gain relative to capitalism. > So what? Consider this: intellectuals would gain under ANY EXTENSION OF > DEMOCRACY. Simply because intellectuals have the communicative skills needed > to be more persuasive, and the value of persuasiveness increases as DEMOCRACY > increases. Intellectuals gain with every move toward an administered society. The question of democracy is orthogonal to whether businessmen or intellectuals make the decisions. In fact, businessmen and intellectuals-turned-administrators are not radically different animals. It is the incentives and penalties they face that makes them different. Compare a businessman misjudging, say, the demand for laptop computers to an intellectual predicting that MIRVs will improve U.S. national security or that TVA will end poverty in Appalachia. Retribution is much swifter and harsher in the first case than in the second. This gives us a low-cost utilitarian argument for leaving economic decisionmaking in the hands of cutthroat shortsighted businessmen who often would have a hard time articulating what the hell they are trying to accomplish. Note that such a pro-capitalist argument does not need libertarian-style assumptions about the magic of the marketplace or lack of coercion in market transactions. ----- Gabor Fencsik {dual,nsc,hplabs,intelca}!qantel!gabor
bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Bob Weiler) (06/20/85)
Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ > >Perhaps I can only suspect what's best for me. But who can consistently >know better, and how? > > Mike Sykora I find it interesting to note that the libertarian ideal that the individual knows better than anyone else what is good for him apparently pertains to economics and health, but not to politics. I would like to point out that : 1) Each citizen knows what is in his best interest. 2) In the US, citizens legally have the right to vote for almost anyone, including Libertarians, and the overwhelming majority choose NOT to do so. 3) Therefore, Libertarianism is not in each citizens best interest. On a lighter note, I recall a saying " Democracy is based on the notion that 1000 people are smarter than any 1" ( or something like this. Does anyone know where this comes from? ). It seems to me that Liberterians believe that every individual is smarter than any group of 1000. I find this just as dubious.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (06/21/85)
>Perhaps I can only suspect what's best for me. But who can consistently >know better, and how? > > Mike Sykora Mike has repeated this often, as if its obvious truth should be enough to end the debate. (And is surely must be true, No?). But it is not sufficient, because we live in a reactive world, not a passive one. In the case where X, Y, and Z all agree to let two overrule the contrary opinion of the third as to his planned behaviour, the point may be that ANY communally agreed behaviour will be better for ALL than any behaviour individually planned could be for each. This is much the same situation we face every day, and is the reason humanity grew up in tribes and communities. Our best interests can rarely be served by choosing our own behaviour pattern in ignorance (or in despite) of other people's wishes or behaviour plans. If my goals differ from yours, we may neither achieve our goals when we behave in conflict, but we may each attain part of our goals if we cooperate in doing what neither most desires. The result may not be "the best for me" or "the best for you", but it may be the best we could possibly achieve in the circumstances, unless you overpower me to force me to do your will. The result of this general need for cooperation is that we delegate the authority to decide many behaviour patterns to some authority, which we call a government. Apart from dogmatists, complaints arise mainly when the government attempts to regulate behaviour in the absence of potential conflict. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
nrh@inmet.UUCP (06/21/85)
>/**** inmet:net.politics.t / umcp-cs!mangoe / 4:01 pm Jun 17, 1985 ****/ > >>>Maybe we should call this abstract argument "I suspect that I know what's >>>best for me" the argument from ignorance, and add it to the list of bad >>>arguments that Rich Carnes is compiling. > >>Perhaps I can only suspect what's best for me. But who can consistently >>know better, and how? > >That's a straw man. The current framework of government doesn't claim any >such consistency. Excuse me, but challenging you to find a person who can know your wants better than you do consistently seems to me to be a perfectly valid question to ask of those who claim that governments should have the power to force their decisions on you for your own good. For any choice you face with respect to your own interests, another person may A) Feel you are qualified to make the choice better than he is. B) Feel that he knows better than you what the choice you should make is (and be right). C) Feel that he knows better than you what the choice you should make is (and be WRONG). Sykora is asking (by implication) if you're willing to impose type C decisions on people by force, (of course, they'd get the benefit of the type B decisions too). Making only type B decisions is not a possibility, or if it is, TELL US HOW -- PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Making type A decisions, or making, but not enforcing type B or C decisions, is what libertarianism is all about. >This whole discussion leads me to the conclusion that libertarian theories >are based upon a conception of man which entirely too optimistic. I keep >hearing about "enlightened self-interest". As far as I can tell, >"enlightened" reduces to "playing by the rules". Tsk! This whole "mathematics" business consists of people "playing by the rules". Surely it couldn't work.... This whole "market" business consists of people "playing by the rules" -- surely even a few con-men would destroy the whole thing.... >But this begs the >question: what if my self-interest calls for breaking the rules, or >circumventing them? >I don't see any checks against this force, which is >inevitably going to be present. Weren't you the fellow who couldn't see why Consumer's Union and Underwriter's Lab could exist? Live and learn.... How libertarian societies would enforce their "rules" has been discussed quite a bit here. Can someone who keeps articles send a few of my old ones on this topic to Charley? > >Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe >/* ---------- */ >
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (06/21/85)
> In article <2380030@acf4.UUCP>, mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: > > When I say what is best for X, I don't mean technically, but rather what X > > should attempt to get out of life. X may not know what is best for > > him/herself. But if X does not indeed know, then on what basis could X make a > > decision to trust the decision to Y & Z? > > In many strategic situations (where more than one actor is needed to ensure > success), an actor's goals may be influenced by what that actor considers > as possible. If what is possible depends on the actions or strategies > pursued by other parties, such that alliance with those parties helps X, > then X may have reason to trust the decision to Y & Z of what the group > strategy should be, especially if X has no power over the determination > of that strategy anyways. > > That is, there are many strategies where being a follower is optimal, > even if the follower doesn't quite know what's going on. In fact, knowing > what is going on may hurt a follower in the sense that the follower's > anticipation of leaders' strategies may make the follower a candidate > for scapegoating or being passed over due to over-ambitiousness. > > In the world political situation, most smaller nations fit the above > description of X and X's optimal strategy. In lots of organizations too. > > Tony Wuersch > {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw Ah, now you are talking Tony! Regardless of whether one is a leader or follower or one among equals there are many many times when each individual's *self*-interest is best served by joining with others for everyone's *social* interest. Joining with other people to accomplish things cooperatively does not imply oppression or a lack of freedom or anything else. Without joining together with other people most things simply cannot be done. To take the most basic example, none of us would even be alive if we were not helped to adulthood by our parents or guardians. Infants left alone without aid will die. Period. Does this mean the family is "oppressive"? Of course not, caring for the young is one of the foundations of life. Having the necessity and the advantages from working together to achieve goals, the question then becomes "how can everyone have a relatively equal say in how things get done?" "How can we insure that the benefits of such cooperation are shared equally?" I happen to believe the answers to these questions are through some form of democracy rather than an autocracy or authoritarian setup in which one leader or owner has all the power. In a democracy X is not making a decision to simply trust the judgements of Y & Z but X has power to affect decisions. If Y & Z are officeholders then they can be challenged. X may come to be an officeholder herself and be able to accomplish things for her self-interest as a citizen that are greater than anything she could accomplish by herself alone. tim sevener whuxl!orb
neal@denelvx.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) (06/23/85)
****************************************************************************** > > What does "arrogance and presumption" have to do with TRUTH? Certainly > people who don't know others and make critical suggestions are arrogant by > assumption, because they're too uninformed to hit the mark enough. They > arrogate knowledge to themselves which they don't have. > > But people who do know others and criticize based on that knowledge often > do others a service. And if they are wrong, they get feedback to that > effect and learn thereby. > > Tony Wuersch Speaking of "strawmen"!!! No one is talking about criticizing--the subject of discussion that I recall was (heavily paraphrased) forcing people to do "what's good for them". If you merely criticize, I can at least ignore your arrogance; if you (as the government) tell me that I will contribute to social security for my own good or risk going to prison, that's quite another matter. (Second point): Who gave you an inside track on "TRUTH"? If my concern is "what's good for me" and I'm wrong, noone is damaaged but myself (and a few people close to me). If my concern is "what's good for everybody" and I have the right ("power" if you prefer) to enforce my conclusions, then everybody is hurt if I am wrong. (Third point): What makes you think that the average government official has any interest in learning anything from the feedback? Regards, Neal Weidenhofer "The law is for protection Denelcor, Inc. of the people" <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal
nrh@inmet.UUCP (06/23/85)
>/**** inmet:net.politics.t / pedsgd!bob / 11:04 am Jun 20, 1985 ****/ >Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ > >> >>Perhaps I can only suspect what's best for me. But who can consistently >>know better, and how? >> >> Mike Sykora > >I find it interesting to note that the libertarian ideal that the >individual knows better than anyone else what is good for him apparently >pertains to economics and health, but not to politics. I would like >to point out that : > >1) Each citizen knows what is in his best interest. >2) In the US, citizens legally have the right to vote for almost anyone, > including Libertarians, and the overwhelming majority choose > NOT to do so. >3) Therefore, Libertarianism is not in each citizens best interest. Amusing. On the other hand, relatively few people understand what libertarianism is all about. Even libertarians do not hope that individuals will know about alternatives they've never heard of, or have understood poorly. Libertarians are doing their best to inform people, and it's paid off. We're the third largest party in the US (yes, including Republicans and Democrats). I think the point has been conceded that one may not always know the absolute best action to take, but the point remains that private individuals perceive their own interests more directly than their politicians perceive those interests, and thus, ordinarily, more clearly. > >On a lighter note, I recall a saying " Democracy is based on the >notion that 1000 people are smarter than any 1" ( or something >like this. Does anyone know where this comes from? ). It seems >to me that Liberterians believe that every individual is smarter >than any group of 1000. I find this just as dubious. >/* ---------- */ > Not ANY group of 1000, but certainly any random group of 1000 politicians! :-) (I believe the quote was from H.L. Mencken, who, as I understand it, was quite libertarian in his outlook).
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (06/24/85)
In article <470@qantel.UUCP>, gabor@qantel.UUCP (Gabor Fencsik@ex2642) writes: > Intellectuals gain with every move toward an administered society. The question > of democracy is orthogonal to whether businessmen or intellectuals make the > decisions. In fact, businessmen and intellectuals-turned-administrators are > not radically different animals. It is the incentives and penalties they > face that makes them different. > Sure, intellectuals gain with every move toward an administered society. I also think they gain with every move towards democracy. What is meant here by orthogonal? Usually it would imply that the amount of democracy is unrelated to the power of either businessmen or intellectuals. I don't agree. In democracy, persuasive people gain more power, and intellectuals are more persuasive than businessmen because verbal and written agility is needed to be intellectual. One point of democracy should be that important issues would get more public discussion -- hence my claims about intellectuals. And the less democracy, the more an existent distribution of power and property -- that is, the businessman -- makes decisions. As far as penalties go, an intellectual-turned-administrator can be made as responsible for the failure of the program he administers as any manager of a company. > Compare a businessman misjudging, say, the demand for laptop computers > to an intellectual predicting that MIRVs will improve U.S. national > security or that TVA will end poverty in Appalachia. Retribution is much > swifter and harsher in the first case than in the second. The above businessman is a very small one. Most major companies are large, and they judge their managers via organizational norms rather than direct market incentives (sometimes these match, sometimes not -- just as in politics). And woe to the stupid politician that decides to take the misjudgments of the intellectual as gospel. He could lose a lot. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
mike@peregrine.UUCP (Mike Wexler) (06/25/85)
> I find it interesting to note that the libertarian ideal that the > individual knows better than anyone else what is good for him apparently > pertains to economics and health, but not to politics. I would like > to point out that : > > 1) Each citizen knows what is in his best interest. > 2) In the US, citizens legally have the right to vote for almost anyone, > including Libertarians, and the overwhelming majority choose > NOT to do so. > 3) Therefore, Libertarianism is not in each citizens best interest. Any Libertarian who would run for public office is not a Libertarian, but a hippocrite. The mere fact that his/her salary is paid by non-voluntary taxes would be such a sell-out that he might as well not even bother calling him/herself a Libertarian. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Wexler(trwrb!pertec!peregrine!mike) | Send all flames to: 15530 Rockfield, Building C | trwrb!pertec!peregrine!nobody Irvine, Ca 92718 | They will then be given the (714)855-3923 | consideration they are due.
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/25/85)
>/* flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) / 7:58 pm Jun 21, 1985 */ >I thought you were talking about self-interest generally, including >"technical" questions (just what do you mean by "technical", anyway?). By "technical" I mean issues of technique, i.e., means, as opposed to ends. >That would seem to me to be the more important issue, especially if, >e.g., whether one should wear a seat belt is a "technical" issue. I don't see why this is the more important issue. One should not consider ends until one has decided at least on the rudiments of ends. As for the seat-belt issue, this seems to include both technical and "goal" considerations. >(And you apparently admit that on "technical" issues it might be wise to >let others have a say in your decision.) Of course. It would be the height of folly to believe otherwise. >By the way, I think it's an oversimplification to speak of "fundamental >goals in life"; I think a rational person decides on goals piecemeal, >learning by experience all the while. I don't see any conflict between the concept of "fundamental goals" and dynamicism of these goals. Mike Sykora
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/25/85)
>/* bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Bob Weiler) / 11:04 am Jun 20, 1985 */ >I find it interesting to note that the libertarian ideal that the >individual knows better than anyone else what is good for him apparently >pertains to economics and health, but not to politics. This is not an ideal but a belief. Moreover, it is not clear that such a belief is inherent in libertarianism. >I would like to point out that : >1) Each citizen knows what is in his best interest. >2) In the US, citizens legally have the right to vote for almost anyone, > including Libertarians, and the overwhelming majority choose > NOT to do so. >3) Therefore, Libertarianism is not in each citizens best interest. Your earlier description was that "the individual knows better than anyone else . . ." But 1) above doesn't say this. Therefore, the conclusion is unjustified. >It seems >to me that Liberterians believe that every individual is smarter >than any group of 1000. I find this just as dubious. Please explain how you arrived at thi ludicrous conclusion. Mike Sykora
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (06/25/85)
In article <72@denelvx.UUCP>, neal@denelvx.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) writes: > ****************************************************************************** > > > > What does "arrogance and presumption" have to do with TRUTH? Certainly > > people who don't know others and make critical suggestions are arrogant by > > assumption, because they're too uninformed to hit the mark enough. They > > arrogate knowledge to themselves which they don't have. > > > > But people who do know others and criticize based on that knowledge often > > do others a service. And if they are wrong, they get feedback to that > > effect and learn thereby. > > > > Tony Wuersch > > Speaking of "strawmen"!!! No one is talking about criticizing--the > subject of discussion that I recall was (heavily paraphrased) forcing people > to do "what's good for them". If you merely criticize, I can at least > ignore your arrogance; if you (as the government) tell me that I will > contribute to social security for my own good or risk going to prison, > that's quite another matter. Tony wasn't responding to a strawman. He was responding to Mike Sykora's blanket statement about criticism in general which Mike wanted to use to indict governments in particular. But the blanket statement, about the arrogance of giving advice as to what is "best" for people, was directed at anyone giving advice, not just governments. In a response to Tony's response, Mike rephrased his blanket statement in a more reasonable way and apologized for his initial broad brush. So Tony's response was appropriate. > (Second point): Who gave you an inside track on "TRUTH"? If my > concern is "what's good for me" and I'm wrong, noone is damaaged but myself > (and a few people close to me). If my concern is "what's good for > everybody" and I have the right ("power" if you prefer) to enforce my > conclusions, then everybody is hurt if I am wrong. There are good laws against people who do what's "good" for themselves and damage others. Each person's life and experiences gives them an inside track to some truths and not to others. Some of those truths can be about other people. Most people don't see giving and taking advice as coercion or submission to same. > (Third point): What makes you think that the average government > official has any interest in learning anything from the feedback? The history of political movements. Hope this helps. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (06/25/85)
> (Third point): What makes you think that the average government > official has any interest in learning anything from the feedback? > > Regards, > Neal Weidenhofer Well, having a few public servants among my friends and relations, I can vouch that government officials have the same sorts of goals as the rest of us, and derive a similar satisfaction from a job well done. It is true that people in civil service jobs are hard to fire, but I would feel sorry for Denelcor if the sole reason you applied yourself was to avoid being fired. What makes you think that government officials are any less interested in learning from feedback than you are? Baba
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/25/85)
> Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ > > > > >Perhaps I can only suspect what's best for me. But who can consistently > >know better, and how? > > > > Mike Sykora > > I find it interesting to note that the libertarian ideal that the > individual knows better than anyone else what is good for him apparently > pertains to economics and health, but not to politics. I would like > to point out that : > > 1) Each citizen knows what is in his best interest. > 2) In the US, citizens legally have the right to vote for almost anyone, > including Libertarians, and the overwhelming majority choose > NOT to do so. > 3) Therefore, Libertarianism is not in each citizens best interest. > > On a lighter note, I recall a saying " Democracy is based on the > notion that 1000 people are smarter than any 1" ( or something > like this. Does anyone know where this comes from? ). It seems > to me that Liberterians believe that every individual is smarter > than any group of 1000. I find this just as dubious. Libertarian thought says, not that every individual is smarter than any group of 1000, but rather: 1. Almost all legitimate social activities (including fire departments, helping the poor, and caring for the aged) can be done more effectively in the absence of government interference through voluntary association. 2. If a thousand individuals make stupid mistakes, it is unlikely they will all make the same mistake in the same way; a thousand people following a powerful leader in an organization or government will make the same mistake together, and be more dangerous for it.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/28/85)
> The result of this general need for cooperation is that we delegate the > authority to decide many behaviour patterns to some authority, which we > call a government. Apart from dogmatists, complaints arise mainly when > the government attempts to regulate behaviour in the absence of potential > conflict. > -- > > Martin Taylor > {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt > {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt The dogmatists have arisen because it has become clear during this century that while individuals may delegate authority to a government, the government is unwilling, or unable, to restrict itself to the areas of authority that were originally delegated to it. The worst manifestation of this is the manner in which democratic governments turned into totalitarian governments because of pressure from the population for immediate solutions to economic and social problems. I doubt very much that the modern libertarian movement would exist, were it not for the evil wrought by the democratically elected governments of Hitler & Mussolini.
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/28/85)
>/* mike@peregrine.UUCP (Mike Wexler) / 6:37 pm Jun 24, 1985 */ >Any Libertarian who would run for public office is not a Libertarian, but >a hippocrite. The mere fact that his/her salary is paid by non-voluntary >taxes would be such a sell-out that he might as well not even bother >calling him/herself a Libertarian. Given that a Libertarian has a chance of winning office over a non-Liertarian, the salary amounts to an inconsequential amount compared to the amount of money the taxpayers might save if the Liertarian is elected. Besides, the Libertarian could do the job for free and subsist thru contributions. Mike Sykora
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/28/85)
>/* baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) / 10:16 pm Jun 24, 1985 */ >What makes you think that government officials are any less interested >in learning from feedback than you are? Theory and history.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/28/85)
> > (Third point): What makes you think that the average government > > official has any interest in learning anything from the feedback? > > > > Regards, > > Neal Weidenhofer > > Well, having a few public servants among my friends and relations, I can > vouch that government officials have the same sorts of goals as the rest > of us, and derive a similar satisfaction from a job well done. It is true > that people in civil service jobs are hard to fire, but I would feel sorry > for Denelcor if the sole reason you applied yourself was to avoid being fired. > > What makes you think that government officials are any less interested > in learning from feedback than you are? > > Baba Government, because it is a monopoly, doesn't have the competitive pressures to improve service if it screws up; a private company that screws up loses its market share, and the stockholders or the proprietor will take steps to solve the problem by removing managers that don't do their jobs. The government doesn't have bad intentions in this area --- it just can't figure out that it has problems because it can't lose market share.
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/29/85)
>/* tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) / 2:12 pm Jun 24, 1985 */ >In democracy, persuasive people gain more power, and >intellectuals are more persuasive than businessmen because verbal and >written agility is needed to be intellectual. This seems reasonable. However, people like Hitler have proven even more persuasive than intellectuals. If democracy favors the most persuasive, consider the implications. >One point of democracy >should be that important issues would get more public discussion -- hence >my claims about intellectuals. And the less democracy, the more an >existent distribution of power and property -- that is, the businessman >-- makes decisions. There is a trade-off here, since while intellectuals may be necessary for discussion, businessman are necessary to get things done. Man does not live by debate alone. >As far as penalties go, an intellectual-turned-administrator can be made as >responsible for the failure of the program he administers as any manager >of a company. Not likely. As was pointed out in a recent Reason article, politicians have an incentive to focus on the short term at the expense of the long term because of the nature of democratic politics. On the other hand, since wealth is transferrable, the value of an enterprise is theoretically based on an infinite sequence of future returns discounted to the present. Thus, businessmen have an incentive to make their businesses viable for the long-term, i.e., even after their death, since the perceived odds on such viability affect the present value of their enterprises. >Most major companies are large, >and they judge their managers via organizational norms rather than direct >market incentives (sometimes these match, sometimes not -- just as in >politics). I don't believe this is necessarily so. Of course, the larger the company the more difficult to make sure middle management is doing its job, but when this becomes too difficult, that may mean that the company is too large for its current structure and changes need to be made. Which companies/industries are you referring to? (I want to short them :-) >And woe to the stupid politician that decides to take the misjudgments of >the intellectual as gospel. He could lose a lot. Sure. Unfortunately, the majority of people lose a lot more. >Tony Wuersch Mike Sykora
nrh@inmet.UUCP (07/06/85)
>/**** inmet:net.politics.t / umcp-cs!mangoe / 12:01 am Jul 2, 1985 ****/ >In article <28200016@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: > >>>>Perhaps I can only suspect what's best for me. But who can consistently >>>>know better, and how? > >>>That's a straw man. The current framework of government doesn't claim any >>>such consistency. [me] > >>Excuse me, but challenging you to find a person who can know your wants >>better than you do consistently seems to me to be a perfectly valid >>question to ask of those who claim that governments should have the power >>to force their decisions on you for your own good. For any choice >>you face with respect to your own interests, another person may >> >> A) Feel you are qualified to make the choice better than he is. >> >> B) Feel that he knows better than you what the choice you should >> make is (and be right). >> >> C) Feel that he knows better than you what the choice you should >> make is (and be WRONG). >> >>Sykora is asking (by implication) if you're willing to impose type C >>decisions on people by force, (of course, they'd get the benefit of the >>type B decisions too). Making only type B decisions is not a >>possibility, or if it is, TELL US HOW -- PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Making type >>A decisions, or making, but not enforcing type B or C decisions, is what >>libertarianism is all about. > >But the central problem of government is not seeing that everyone gets what >they need/want; it is trying to get the best solution given that everyone >cannot have what they want. To be able to accomplish this, the government >has to have the power to force people to do things they don't want, or even >the power to act against their needs. Certainly. The murderous "needs" of mass murderers may be safely and justly tromped on. Government, of course, is not the institution I would choose to do it. I still don't see how this is relevant to Sykora's question about who may know better than an individual what is best for that individual. In particular, if it is impossible for the government to guess correctly consistently, what rate of success must they demonstrate before they should have the right to force type B/C choices on people? > >Consistency is a red herring. Real governments must perforce operate in a >world of chance, misinformation, irrationality, and outright malice. So, for the record, must everyone else, and in particular, those on the net :-). >The >immense output of historians testifies that one cannot even rate the >effectiveness of a person or group correctly recognizing someone's needs, or >even their true desires. Indeed. For historians to correctly rate A's recognition of B's needs, they would need an understanding of B's needs. Governments don't have this. Historians don't have this. Only B has this. >The reason one cannot simply take someone's wants >as indicative of their needs is that there is an obvious bias to their >perspective; moreover, the still must be a coordinating agency to resolve >the inevitable conflicts. Such an agency will have to make its own >evaluations of need. Such an agency need not even guess at the "needs" of the people involved. To administer justly, it need merely determine who initiated force. I am NOT saying there are no hard problems -- not at all -- but merely that conflicting needs may be handled peaceably, and when they are NOT handled peacebly, a coordinating agency need merely determine who broke the peace. >>>This whole discussion leads me to the conclusion that libertarian theories >>>are based upon a conception of man which entirely too optimistic. I keep >>>hearing about "enlightened self-interest". As far as I can tell, >>>"enlightened" reduces to "playing by the rules". >> >>Tsk! This whole "mathematics" business consists of people "playing >>by the rules". Surely it couldn't work.... This whole "market" business >>consists of people "playing by the rules" -- surely even a few con-men >>would destroy the whole thing.... > >But that's one of my criticisms. The current US system has checks built >into it for the purpose of discouraging attempts to break the system, or to >limit their effects; moreover, there are adaptive mechanisms to cope with >changing circumstances. The Libertarian ideas discribed here (especially by >Mike Sykora) don't seem to allow for anything like this, and the Libertarian >model of man (again as expressed in this newsgroup) doesn't seem to allow >for malice or love of power as a motivation. Huh? The libertarian view I've seen here includes profound distrust for those who would impose their ideas of what is right into law. Why? Partly because those with the love of power, or those who see a way of using the law to settle personal scores (malice) tend to be quite commonly seen. To argue that the current US system is more adaptable than a libertarian one because the US one has explicit adaptation mechanisms is like arguing that a complex program is more correct than a simple one because it has more special cases. Libertarian society puts fewer restraints on people in most ways, and thereby leaves the burden of finding solutions to new problems on those people. Governments cannot place the burden elsewhere, but they CAN deny people the right to find solutions on their own. >>>But this begs the >>>question: what if my self-interest calls for breaking the rules, or >>>circumventing them? >>>I don't see any checks against this force, which is >>>inevitably going to be present. >> >>Weren't you the fellow who couldn't see why Consumer's Union and >>Underwriter's Lab could exist? Live and learn.... > >Certainly private inspectors may take up some governmental functions. But, >in a system where money equates directly to power, the temptations to >corruption are going to be quite powerful, especially when (for instance) CU >grows to the size and power of the Teamster's Union. Note here netters -- Charley has made a mature and dignified reply to my dig. I appreciate this -- such replies are rare. That said.... Money does not equate directly to power. As Von Mises put it (quoting here from memory) "The least government *fonctionairre* who has the ability to deny me the right to work has more power over me than a millionaire who lives next door." In short, the degree of power a rich man may wield in a libertarian society is pretty limited -- any attempt to use his money to control my life costs him quite a bit, and is certainly less successful than in a society wherein one's rights may be *LEGALLY* abrogated because one happens to have certain ancestry (I refer here to the US detention of the Japanese/Americans during WWII). As for the notions that there are no checks against the greedy and malicious, they are incorrect. I suggest you read "The Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman for a discussion of these issues. > >Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe >/* ---------- */ > - Nat Howard