[net.politics.theory] Explorations of "social-interest

nrh@inmet.UUCP (06/27/85)

>/**** inmet:net.politics.t / whuxl!orb / 11:19 am  Jun 24, 1985 ****/
>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.

I can see your professor being stunned by your foolishness.  You may 
as well argue that Crusoe didn't model a society because he had
no arguments with himself, that his liver didn't rebel against his
bloodstream, and so forth.  Which economic textbook was it, by the way?

>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.

That's nice.  Mr. X, for example, is NOT a model of a whole society, but
of a person who invests resources wisely.  Straw man here, for those
still counting, eh Sevener?

>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.

Even if true, uninteresting.  What difference does it make whether
this work is done in the "home" or elsewhere?  Where is the limit
on government intervention if all housing is owned by the government?

>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.  

Note the intriguing use of the word "claim".  Mr. X makes no "claim"
on anyone, except that they leave him alone, and not force him to 
do anything.  Mr. X. OFFERS widgets at a price.  The only claim
involved is that the trade of widgets for other people's production
must not be coerced.

>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.

Quite possible, which is why Mr. X is led to produce widgets that
other people value more than their own production (just as 
Mr. X values their production more than the widgets, else no
trade could occur).

>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.

As has been pointed out quite clearly before, the donations of others
(such as parents) to one's ability to work, or their free trade
of their abilities for their salaries (book publishers, educators)
requires no further payment.  One may, of course, and probably will
choose to contribute to "society", but that "society" has contributed to 
you imposes no accountability to government.

>The myth of Robinson Crusoe, of freedom to produce solely for oneself
>and one's own use is just that, a myth.  

So?  Having knocked down yet another straw man, do you expect us
to be impressed? Pfui.

>What Libertarians are really
>talking about is unrestrained claims on *others* social production.

Hard to see just how this is so.  After all, to join the Libertarian
party, one must sign a statement opposing the initiation of force.

Shame on you tim, for strewing even more straw on the path.

> 
>                                tim sevener whuxl!orb
>/* ---------- */
>

						- Nat Howard

nrh@inmet.UUCP (06/28/85)

>/**** inmet:net.politics.t / whuxl!orb / 10:13 am  Jun 24, 1985 ****/
>The abhorrence to democracy of most Libertarians is made explicit here by
>JoSH.  All will be solved by the "market" and competition.
>Yet I would contend that this is precisely what we wish to *avoid*.
>Let us take "competition" in traffic, to continue my mundane example of
>social interaction.  

We have here a really remarkable example either of Tim's inability
to understand libertarian ideas (whether he agrees with them or not)
or of Tim's penchant for straw men -- take your pick.

In particular, a traffic situation on a public road is a very good
example of a government influenced situation.  The state has established
road safety laws, determined who will drive and what routes the roads
will be on, what safety criteria are sufficient, what sorts of road signs
will be enough, what traffic laws will be followed, what the road will
be made of, how many people will be allowed on the road, and what they
will pay (or not pay) for the privilege.  Given all this, Sevener
regales us with how terrible is the "libertarian" situation we have on the
roads in New Jersey.

Gosh, Thanks Tim!  'Sa good thing you labeled this "libertarian",
or I never would have noticed it.

Chalk one up for "Straw Man Sevener".

>Essentially that is to some degree the system that
>prevails in New Jersey - people go for their own self-interests with
>little regulation of competition.  I have seen a number of people go
>right through a red light, after sitting stopped for it for at least
>a minute.  It was not then a case of having momentum and failing to stop,
>but sheer disregard for the law and *others* in pursuit of their
>own self-interest.  In such a competitive situation those who win out
>will be those with the biggest cars and those with the least qualms about
>hurting their own car or *others*.  Those who wish to consider others
>rights will be left behind as well as those with special care for their
>passengers such as those with children in the car.
>A *democracy* ruled by law implies the opposite situation.
>All will be treated equally by the law *regardless* of the size of their
>car, their racing prowess, or their reckless disregard for others
>safety.  Such regulations not only protect *everyone* but also,
>in fact, allow faster traffic than rampant and unregulated competition.

Indeed, even-handed regulation protects people, provided it's
balanced against the self-interest of road-owners.  If, for example, 
a particular private road were unsafe, revenue would be lost, and an incentive
would be there to fix the problem.  On the other hand, there is a much less
direct path to the legislator's self-interest by which these things get
fixed in a democracy (or a republic).  Much less direct, than, say, 
the offer of campaign funds from a second-rate concrete company.

>"In a market, the collective result is often completely different than
>the (self-interested) intents of all the actors therein." says JoSH.
>The result of a totally free "competition" in traffic would be the
>evolution from bigger and bigger cars to monstrously expensive tanks.

Tsk!  Once again, you're failing to think how people in a libertarian
society would think -- the options open to them include outlawing
(for specific roads) these "tanks", by flexible and continuously
adjusted criteria that have tangible results on the regulator's 
self interest.  Just to give the most obvious example of this, the
private road-owner would probably outlaw "tanks" to prevent his
road from wearing out fast.

>Certainly it is true that this collective result is completely different
>than the self-interests of all actors in daily traffic.
>After all, who can afford a tank?  Only the rich.
>But even they would actually find less expense in a smaller-sized car
>allowed by some reasonable regulation of commuter interactions.

After all, who can afford traffic tickets?  Only the rich.  Of course,
a DEMOCRACY would never allow such an unequal thing as "traffic tickets"
to happen, eh Tim?

>
>Which is why there has *never been* and never will be a completely 
>competitive system of economics or social interaction.
>Because such a system harms the self-interests of *all*.

Excuse me, but I don't recall any libertarian proposing a COMPLETELY 
competitive system of economics or social interaction.  Citation please,
or perhaps an apology for yet another straw man.

For those interested, about 3 months back, I posted Murray Rothbard's
excellent refutation of the accusation that individualists would eschew
cooperation.