orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (06/24/85)
Devout followers of Libertarianism and even orthodox neo-classical
economists are very fond of the Robinson Crusoe myth.
In fact, one of my economics textbooks made the Robinson Crusoe myth
part of its argument. The Robinson Crusoe myth is the myth that
economic activity and likewise all important social activity, (since
we all "know" that economics is *the* most important social activity)
is totally individualistic in nature. Imagine Robinson Crusoe on his
island, we are told, trying to produce the necessities and luxuries of life.
From that we can then glean a model for all of society.
My economics professor was stunned when I pointed out the obvious which
he and his fellow economists had totally ignored: namely that in fact,
Mr. Robinson Crusoe was hardly a model of any society at all except one
doomed to failure. For he had no children. Without passing on its fruits
to its children society would soon die out. But this consideration is not
part of the "economic" sphere and hence totally unimportant. Trivial.
Other Libertarians have gone on great harangues about Mr. X and his widget
maker. Mr. X is simply the relative to Robinson Crusoe on his island.
Libertarians and their kindred economists will go on at great lengths
about the individual's right to create as many widgets as s/he wants
in their own home.
Nobody wishes to deny Mr. X or Robinson the right to be totally
self-sufficient if they wish. Not even Communist societies prevent
individuals from producing all the widgets they want in their own
homes.
But this is not what Libertarians and neo-classical economists
are really talking about. What they are talking about is the
*social* claim for Mr. X, widget-maker, to be able to claim as much
of other people's production as he can possibly extract out of
Mr. X's production of widgets. Without being able to claim *other
people's production* Mr. X's production of even a million widgets
is completely useless. "Let him eat widgets"!!" said his fellows.
This is not a case of totally individualistic production- in fact
as we all know there is no such thing for even Mr. X must rely
on the work, intellectual or otherwise, of others to even get the
parts for his widgets, for the machines to make them,etc.
The myth of Robinson Crusoe, of freedom to produce solely for oneself
and one's own use is just that, a myth. What Libertarians are really
talking about is unrestrained claims on *others* social production.
tim sevener whuxl!orbmms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/25/85)
>/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 11:19 am Jun 24, 1985 */ >But this consideration is not >part of the "economic" sphere and hence totally unimportant. Trivial. Not at all. Individuals' preferences (in aggregate - demand) are the reason we have an economic system in the first place. Whether or not to have children is a question of such preferences. >Libertarians and their kindred economists will go on at great lengths >about the individual's right to create as many widgets as s/he wants >in their own home. If you wish, this libertarian will go on and on about the right of people to have as many children as they want. >Not even Communist societies prevent >individuals from producing all the widgets they want in their own >homes. You've GOT to be joking -- not even Communist societies? Our own society has passed numerous laws against working at home. >But this is not what Libertarians and neo-classical economists >are really talking about. What they are talking about is the >*social* claim for Mr. X, widget-maker, to be able to claim as much >of other people's production as he can possibly extract out of >Mr. X's production of widgets. Thanks for straightenning us out, Tim. Actually, what libertarians are talking about is the right of Mr. X and Mr. Z to do anything they wish so long as they do not innitiate force or fraud against others. >Without being able to claim *other >people's production* Mr. X's production of even a million widgets >is completely useless. How does he claim other people's production? Does he force them to work. >This is not a case of totally individualistic production- in fact >as we all know there is no such thing for even Mr. X must rely >on the work, intellectual or otherwise, of others to even get the >parts for his widgets, for the machines to make them,etc. Mr. X has contracted wiith some individuals for them to perform some work for him. Both parties have agreed voluntarily. Everything was going fine until Mr. Sevener began to forcefully interfere with something that it was not his place to interfere in. These parties may decide tomorrow to interfere in the relationship between Mr. Sevener and his wife or girlfriend, but I don't thinnk Mr. Sevener will approve of that. > tim sevener whuxl!orb Mike Sykora
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (06/28/85)
In article <2380049@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: >Actually, what libertarians are talking about is the right of Mr. X and Mr. Z >to do anything they wish so long as they do not innitiate force or fraud >against others. This begs the question so much that I cannot consider it to be anything but a slogan. To take a very radical Christian position, for instance: Consider the view that EVERY action has moral repercussions; that you must consider, not just its effects on you, but the implications for EVERYONE. It may be legal for me, as a teacher, to smoke, but is it really moral? Once you take this sort of a principle as your guide, Mike's principle leads you inexorably AWAY from the marketplace. The information needed to make such decisions simply isn't present there. You are also therefore responsible for your influences upon another's criminal behavior, a responsibility that Mike has explicitly denied in another posting. I therefore have to conclude that his position denies anything but immediate and local considerations of right and wrong (which translate to force and fraud in Mike's terms). Now, I think it is impossible to seriously support this theory of local harm. It isn't possible for one person to see all the effects of what he chooses to do. I therefore see no reason to believe that an indivdual must be assumed to to be the best judge of his own good; moreover, it has never been indicated who is going to determine that "force or fraud" has occured. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe