eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) (02/27/85)
> > > The Rich also create jobs, because they are willing to pay people to > > > do things they themselves are not willing to do. This is, in effect, > > > redistributing wealth. > > > > Huh? How is this "redistributing wealth"? The auto manufacturer pays > > wages and gets cars. The cars he gets are worth more than the wages > > he pays (otherwise he would have long ceased to be an auto manufacturer). > > Therfore, not only does he not "redistribute wealth" but in fact > > appropriates the wealth created by the labour power he hires. > > The workers get a share of the value of their labor. If there were > no auto manufacturing company to pay them, their labor would be > worthless. It is because some person with a lot of money (theirs > or someone else's) is willing to pay them for their labor that > these people have jobs. Isn't that nice? > Employees more or less get full value for their labor. They also have very little risk. Working, as I do, for the Boeing Company, I can be fairly confidant that I will get a check every two weeks for the full amount of time I put in. On the other hand, the shareholders, who in aggregate own the company, have a bunch of plants full of equipment, a number of airplanes in various stages of assembly, zillions of parts, and a lot of risk. These are the risks they take: will all the planes we build get sold? will the selling price be more than what we pay suppliers for parts and our employees for their labor? will the FAA certify our new models as safe enough to carry passengers? Will we be able to compete with France, Britain, W. Germany, and the other owners of Airbus, our main competitor? In return for taking these risks, the shareholders have the opportunity, not the certainty, of making a return on their investment. If the employees wages were increased so that there was no profit for the shareholders, why should they take those risks I mentioned? They would have no chance for gain and many chances for loss. One of the most fundamental rules of investment is that the risk you take should be proportional to the potential gain. This applies to the laborer, who invests his time, as much as to the venture capitalist, who invests money. Dani Eder / ssc-vax!eder / Boeing
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (03/04/85)
> Employees more or less get full value for their labor. They > also have very little risk. Working, as I do, for the Boeing Company, > I can be fairly confidant that I will get a check every two weeks > for the full amount of time I put in. On the other hand, the shareholders, > who in aggregate own the company, have a bunch of plants full of > equipment, a number of airplanes in various stages of assembly, > zillions of parts, and a lot of risk. > > One of the most fundamental rules of investment is that the > risk you take should be proportional to the potential gain. This > applies to the laborer, who invests his time, as much as to the > venture capitalist, who invests money. > > Dani Eder / ssc-vax!eder / Boeing If a person works for MacDonalds in El Salvador, she makes perhaps 40 cents a day. If the same person works for MacDonalds in the U.S., she makes minimum wage. Perhaps without minimum wage she might make less, but it sure would never get to 40 cents. Why, then, given a huge disparity in the wages one might receive for the same labor, does Dani make a blanket statement like "Employees more or less get full value for their labor."? Define what is meant by value, please. Taking Dani's first paragraph into account, I assume he means to assert that a laborer gets the same return on investment given her chosen level of risk (minimal, he says) as a venture capitalist. If he means by this that the laborer receives the same marginal product that she contributes (and I'm afraid I can't go into the neoclassical micro details that this implies, though I'm sure that Dani must know what I mean if he says that laborers get an adequate return), then I would ask how he knows that this is so. Present some evidence, please. This is the real world, not the world of neoclassical theory. If he means something else, I would ask what he means, because I then don't understand it at all. I also question Dani's blanket assumption that laborers take on less risk than capitalists as a whole. Obviously, some capitalists take more risk and so do some laborers. But the blanket assumption is a general one. Since Dani doesn't explain what risk is in comparing laborers and capitalists, we have to suggest a plausible construct. I suggest that risk be expressed not in the individual contract, but in terms of a long- term investment strategy, a set of contracts. Furthermore, I'd suggest that the costs of withdrawal and transfer of investment be factored into the risk equation. Finally, I'd suggest that the risk chosen by an individual may not be a chosen number, it may be determined by other factors. If a person must accept the threat of brown lung in order to obtain subsistence income and hence continue to live, then her risk goes way up (I doubt her return would be sufficient -- let the reader judge here). A laborer's investment strategy, I'd suggest, involves heavy fixed investment (in housing, education, accumulated community ties [friends, counselors, etc.]), and high overhead (fixed and regular maintenance costs), relative to income received. In situations of high unemployment (i.e. most of the real world), the peaks and valleys of economic cycles may not permit an adequate income stream to maintain the laborer's fixed investment, since the maintenance of that income stream depends on the success of an all-eggs-in-one-basket investment -- the current job. The ability of a laborer to spread her investment is limited by the transportation and time constraints inherent in her physical form. None of these constraints limit the capitalist who can deploy his money worldwide. Any all-eggs investment strategy is high risk. No investment analyst would ever recommend an all-eggs strategy to a conservative investor. That almost all laborers carry out the investment strategy I've outlined above (and often the fixed investment becomes more extensive as the strategy enters its later phases), implies that said strategy involves a high level of risk, since no conservative investor in his right mind would ever pursue such a strategy. If Dani thinks that laborers get the right amount of return given their small level of risk, and their level of risk is what I claim it to be, i.e. much higher, then clearly laborers must be getting a grossly insufficient amount of return, or they are forced by circumstances to carry out a retarded, stunted, and defective investment strategy. I wonder what those circumstances might be? Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) (03/12/85)
> > Employees more or less get full value for their labor. They > > also have very little risk. Working, as I do, for the Boeing Company, > > > > Dani Eder / ssc-vax!eder / Boeing > > Define what is meant by value, please. The shareholders are betting that they can rent the employees time for less than the labor is worth to the eventual buyers of the product. The excess of money received from customers over costs, including employee salaries, is the profit. The value of the labor is what the customers who buy the product are willing to pay over the other costs of making the product (in other words the 'value added' in the eyes of the customer) In the case of my company, 5/6 of that value added goes to the employees as wages, 1/6 goes to the shareholders as dividends and retained earnings. That is what I meant by 'more or less full value'. > > Since Dani doesn't explain what risk is in comparing laborers and The risk of an employee is the wages an employee has earned but has not been paid for yet, times the small chance the company will not pay those wages on the next payday. The risk of the shareholder is his invested capital times the chance he will get back less than he invested. In the first case, it may be hundreds or a few thousand dollars times a small fraction of a percent chance of getting nothing. In the second, it is the dollar amount invested times 10-40% chance of losing money, depending on the company. In venture startups it is a 80-90% chance of losing most or all of your money. With more established companies, you seldom lose most of your investment. > > A laborer's investment strategy, I'd suggest, involves heavy fixed > investment (in housing, education, accumulated community ties [friends, > counselors, etc.]), and high overhead (fixed and regular maintenance > costs), relative to income received. In situations of high unemployment On a discounted present value basis, my current job is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. The years I put in to be able to acquire such a job were well spent. Even a minimum wage, minimal skill job has a present value of $80,000. There the acquisition costs are small compared to the value of the job. For a skilled employee, the question is whether additional education will return enough of an increase in income to make it worthwhile. > (i.e. most of the real world), the peaks and valleys of economic cycles > may not permit an adequate income stream to maintain the laborer's fixed > investment, since the maintenance of that income stream depends on the > success of an all-eggs-in-one-basket investment -- the current job. > The ability of a laborer to spread her investment is limited by the > transportation and time constraints inherent in her physical form. None > of these constraints limit the capitalist who can deploy his money > worldwide. > > Any all-eggs investment strategy is high risk. No investment > analyst would ever recommend an all-eggs strategy to a conservative > investor. That almost all laborers carry out the investment strategy > I've outlined above (and often the fixed investment becomes more > extensive as the strategy enters its later phases), implies that said > strategy involves a high level of risk, since no conservative investor > in his right mind would ever pursue such a strategy. And what do you call a two wage earner family? I call it diversification. At one point a few years ago, my brother and I, and both my parents were all working simultaneously(not all full time, though). That was serious diversification. > > Tony Wuersch > {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw Dani Eder / Boeing / ssc-vax!eder *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (03/14/85)
Value: > The value of the labor is what the customers who buy the product > are willing to pay over the other costs of making the product (in > other words the 'value added' in the eyes of the customer) > In the case of my company, 5/6 of that value added goes to the > employees as wages, 1/6 goes to the shareholders as dividends and > retained earnings. That is what I meant by 'more or less full value'. > > (Dani Eder) Not bad as a definition of the sum of value. With one crucial addition that I'm sure Dani wouldn't accept, it comes close to a Marxist criterion. That addition is the shift from the notion of "employee", an payroll category, to "worker", a person who produces. What managers produce requires usually less skill than what workers produce (especially skilled ones), but it always gets more compensation in wages, a good deal more than per employee value plus skill benefits. The opinion of most Marxists who judge "values" in an honest way, that is, by evaluating labor output and effort, is that the differential that managers receive above their per employee value plus skill benefits is not value, but surplus, of the same sort as shareholders receive. Put that differential on the shareholder side of the ledger and employees end up with much less than full value. > The risk of an employee is the wages an employee has earned but > has not been paid for yet, times the small chance the company will > not pay those wages on the next payday. > The risk of the shareholder is his invested capital times the > chance he will get back less than he invested. As I said previously, the costs of early withdrawal and transfer have to be factored into the amount risked, just as they are in judging whether to buy securities or stocks. The cost of early withdrawal over a period is the probability of losing one's job over that period times the costs of reinvestment and transfer. This cost is practically nil for the shareholder in a working stock exchange. > > > > A laborer's investment strategy, I'd suggest, involves heavy fixed > > investment (in housing, education, accumulated community ties [friends, > > counselors, etc.]), and high overhead (fixed and regular maintenance > > costs), relative to income received. In situations of high unemployment > > On a discounted present value basis, my current job is worth > hundreds of thousands of dollars. The years I put in to be able to > acquire such a job were well spent. Even a minimum wage, minimal skill > job has a present value of $80,000. Discounted present value is a standard for judging long term investments, under the assumption that money obtained in interest is added to the initial capital invested over the period under consideration, and not withdrawn (i.e. spent on any thing else) over that period. Since most wages must be withdrawn in order to subsist, interest and interest on interest cannot accumulate. Hence discounted present value is not valid for computing the worker's return. Her return is additive -- only the sum of wages -- whereas the capitalist's return keeps accruing interest. The difference between the additive and discounted present value all goes to the capitalist as a higher return on investment. > > Any all-eggs investment strategy is high risk. No investment > > analyst would ever recommend an all-eggs strategy to a conservative > > investor. That almost all laborers carry out the investment strategy > > I've outlined above (and often the fixed investment becomes more > > extensive as the strategy enters its later phases), implies that said > > strategy involves a high level of risk, since no conservative investor > > in his right mind would ever pursue such a strategy. > > And what do you call a two wage earner family? I call it diversification. > At one point a few years ago, my brother and I, and both my parents were > all working simultaneously(not all full time, though). That was serious > diversification. > Yes it was. But there is still a world of difference between a 2 and 1/2 eggs investment (say, two parents full time and two children one quarter time) and the n eggs investment a capitalist can make precisely to reduce his risk. A workers family can only reduce their risk so much. A capitalist can reduce his risk to zero. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) (03/14/85)
Risk is neither a prerequisite nor a justification for profit. Profit can be present without notable risk, given the correct inference from consumers' desires to their behavior and an awareness of the lead times required for competition to interfere. With alacrity, high profits are possible. Without it, profits tend toward the prevailing market rate of interest. (Some consider this rate as an oportunity cost.) It remains true, however, that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot long have a system that denies the fruits of speculation but requires the incentive of the acquisition of those fruits, of whatever kind they may be, in order to continue to work. You cannot have a system of objective laws if subjective criteria are used within them. You cannot expect people to plan according to objective laws if the laws aren't. You can't have the profits of one kind of planning if you've made that planning impossible. David Hudson
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/18/85)
I wonder about Ungermann-Bass. Do they have lousy management, or have they cornered the market in not needing management or what? I sure wouldn't say that the work that a manager does is ``less work'' or ``less valuable'' than the work that a non-manager does. It is very hard work being a manager; I have tried it, and I can't do a good job. Naturally, there are lousy managers out there, but there are lousy workers as well... Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) (03/20/85)
> > The opinion of most Marxists who judge "values" in an honest way, that is, > by evaluating labor output and effort, is that the differential that managers > receive above their per employee value plus skill benefits is not value, > but surplus, of the same sort as shareholders receive. Put that > differential on the shareholder side of the ledger and employees end up > with much less than full value. > But aren't managers employees too? They are here at Boeing. Perhaps your company is different. The value of a manager at the first level (i.e supervisor, foreman) is supposed to be the increased output of the employees he manages. This improvement can be from motivation, training, skill in scheduling, or ability to get the higher level managers to release funds to buy new equipment. In order to attract the best people to these management positions, the compensation is set higher than that of the shop-floor operative. If this were not the case, then you would preferentially attract people who like to boss others. When you get to the higher levels of management, a factor in the compensation level is the reduction of employee theft. High level managers can steal large amounts from the shareholders, and a sufficiently high salary deters this by reducing the need. At the higher levels of management, compensation in the form of stock and bonuses helps secure the shareholders return by tying the managers return to it. These incentives would not be as necessary in a smaller company with a single major shareholder who has direct contact with management. In the case of large corporations with dispersed ownership, control is vested in high ranking employees, and 'perks' are required to reduce abuse of this power. When you look at the amount of these perks, beyond the value of managers in the form of increased output, it is not significant. Let us make the simplifying assumption that managers are only 'worth' as much as average employees, and that anything above that is perks. Using data from my company, perks amount to less than 4% of total compensation. > > > A laborer's investment strategy, I'd suggest, involves heavy fixed > > > investment (in housing, education, accumulated community ties [friends, > > > counselors, etc.]), and high overhead (fixed and regular maintenance > > > costs), relative to income received. In situations of high unemployment > > > > On a discounted present value basis, my current job is worth > > hundreds of thousands of dollars. The years I put in to be able to > > acquire such a job were well spent. Even a minimum wage, minimal skill > > job has a present value of $80,000. > > Discounted present value is a standard for judging long term investments, > under the assumption that money obtained in interest is added to the > initial capital invested over the period under consideration, and not > withdrawn (i.e. spent on any thing else) over that period. Since most That is not how I understand the term. The assumption behind discounting is that a dollar now is worth more to me than a dollar in the future. The discounted present value is the dollar amount today that equals the sum of all future benefits when they are adjusted for their distance in the future. Usually this is acheived by assigning a 'discount rate'. For example, if the discount rate is 10%, then a ten dollar return next year has a present value of nine dollars. Another example is my job. Using a 10% discount rate, and a 5% probability per year of getting fired, and a 3% per year real salary growth, I get a present value for my job for the next seven years of $147K. > wages must be withdrawn in order to subsist, interest and interest on > interest cannot accumulate. Hence discounted present value is not valid > for computing the worker's return. Her return is additive -- only the sum > of wages -- whereas the capitalist's return keeps accruing interest. The > difference between the additive and discounted present value all goes to > the capitalist as a higher return on investment. The capitalist may spend the interest as it comes in, and the frugal worker may save much of her income. As an example, we (my wife and I) save 42% of our after-tax wages. When I was single I was at about 30%, and when I was a minimum-wage college student, neglecting tuition I was at 40%. It is a matter of whether you want to spend all your income or adjust your lifestyle so as to save money. I am therefore a counterexample to the first case. As for the other, consider a retired person with $150,000 in utility stocks, but who lives on the dividend checks. Where is the capital accumulation? > > > And what do you call a two wage earner family? I call it diversification. > > At one point a few years ago, my brother and I, and both my parents were > > all working simultaneously(not all full time, though). That was serious > > diversification. > > > > Yes it was. But there is still a world of difference between a 2 and 1/2 > eggs investment (say, two parents full time and two children one quarter > time) and the n eggs investment a capitalist can make precisely to reduce > his risk. A workers family can only reduce their risk so much. A > capitalist can reduce his risk to zero. Someone with lots of money can make her risk small, but not zero. A two wage-earner couple who work in different industries have about a 1% chance of being simultaneously unemployed. > > Tony Wuersch > {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (03/29/85)
Neal Weidenhofer writes: > > ...the principle of socialist fairness: "To each according to his > > work, from each according to his abilities." [Tony Wuersch] > This is "socialist"?!? I had always heard "To each according to his > NEED." It sounds like you're half-way to capitalism. Wake up and smell the coffee, Neal. Socialism *is* halfway between capitalism and communism, according to its Marxist meaning. Here is what Marx had to say about distribution under socialism: "What is `a fair distribution'? "Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is `fair'? And is it not, in fact, the only `fair' distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise from economic ones? .... "What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has *developed* on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it *emerges* from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally and intellectually, still stamped with the birth marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions [for costs of administration, funds for those unable to work, for schools, etc.--RC] have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it....The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form he receives back in another. Here obviously the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values....A given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form. "Hence, *equal right* here is still in principle *bourgeois right*....This *equal right* is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is *proportional* to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an *equal standard*, labor. "But one man is superior to another physically or mentally and so supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This *equal* right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because every is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment and thus productive capacity as natural privileges. IT IS, THEREFORE, A RIGHT OF INEQUALITY, IN ITS CONTENT, LIKE EVERY RIGHT. Right by its very nature can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard in so far as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one *definite* side only, for instance, in the present case, are regarded *only as workers* and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right instead of being equal would have to be unequal. "But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby. "In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banner: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! [This was an old socialist slogan before Marx used it here.] ... "Quite apart from the analysis so far given, it was in general a mistake to make a fuss about so-called *distribution* and put the principal stress on it. "Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of non-workers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If the material conditions of production are the cooperative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again?" --Marx, *Gotha Critique* Richard Carnes
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (04/02/85)
>Carnes quoting Marx: "In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banner: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! [This was an old socialist slogan before Marx used it here.] ..." > I recall an earlier message in which I commented that division of labor was "anathema to Marx", and Richard demurred. I would like to point out that this passage bolsters my position. My understanding of Marx's position is that he thought the worker "alienated" by the mode of production where the worker never designed and built a whole device, but endlessly repeated a small part of the operation (which was thereby meaningless to him). The passage makes it clear that "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" will not be valid until the following things occur: > the division of labor ... has vanished > labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want > the productive forces have also increased with the > all-round development of the individual > all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly What kind of society would this be? Each person would design and build whole doofusses and never merely be a part of a process; workers would only do what they wanted to, or conversely, only want to do "the right thing"; would be mental, physical, esthetic, and spiritual giants in modern-day terms (they'd have to be to build whole skyscrapers singlehandedly); and everything would work better with no coercion. Those of you who have been paying attention for the past few months will instantly recognise the standard Libertarian paradise, (Model 2 Mark 1). --JoSH
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (04/04/85)
> tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) writes: > >My state also wouldn't be so stupid as to believe that it can't ever know what > >anyone wants. One of its primary activities would be to keep in close touch > >with what people want via polling, censuses, market analyses, and the > >advice of popular organizations, all of which should be made public to help > >people coordinate their own productive activities. Using this information > >and other expertise or referenda, the state would organize planning to aid > >the achievement of social goals. > > Instead of going through all the overhead, how about making the > state-owned facilities available to whoever wants to use them? Given a > fully automated production system in an economy of abundance, any > "social goals" that anyone feels needs to be achieved, they can do > themselves. If nobody feels a goal is worth working on, then it has no > business being a social goal anyway. > (mike>) This possibility fails because of a tragedy of the commons overuse problem. The state can't just give, give, give. Giving private citizens the right to rape the public authority is not what I would call a social goal. And few social goals have the unanimous consent of the population. My state wouldn't require unanimity to act within reasonable bounds; a majority would do on most questions. Decisions should be made at a public level about what is important and what is moral, even though on most questions individuals should have free choice, where there are many good ways to live and be happy. But questions like "Should some people be permitted to starve?" are what a state is there to answer, "No!". If solving moral problems requires inflicting hardship on some (forcing illiterates to go to school, forcing property owners to pay extra taxes), so be it. > >I think it's a problem with > >Libertaria, that most interesting moral questions become irrelevant and > >nonsensical. I don't believe that the evisceration of morality amounts > >to progress. > > But the nice thing about Libertaria is that it leaves all of the > interesting (= unsolved) moral questions up to the citizens, as opposed > to dictating an answer from above. The ugly thing about Libertaria is that it leaves all of the important moral questions up to the propertied individuals. If Libertaria were hit by a plague, the propertied individuals would live in quarantine units and anyone unwilling to be their stooge could die. If Libertaria had a vast illiteracy rate, the propertied individuals would build schools for themselves (and their stooges). The facts of personal power are nakedly plain in Libertaria. If I have lots of property and I don't like you, I can make your life unrelievedly miserable. No one should have such power; part of guaranteeing freedom should be to limit power so that vindictive injury is made difficult and costly. One can't grow to be generous and kind and gentle when one has to guard against the most extreme threats to one's livelihood and dignity. Only a state can limit the power of individuals. Only a state can guarantee to most citizens the life space to be gentle and kind. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw