mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (01/01/70)
In article <1143@ukma.UUCP> plh@ukma.UUCP (Paul L. Hightower) writes: >Are you sure a neolithic society is near 100% ? According to one book, >"Cannibals and Kings" (I forget the author), neolithic societies spent >approximately 3 hours a day hunting (men) or gathering & chores (women.) >The rest was spent socializing, gossiping, playing, or making war. I would say "C and K" is broken. Some neolithic cultures indeed lived that way, but only those that lived in areas where the carrying capacity of the land was well above the population - and keeping it that way was what led to "nasty, brutish and short" lives in those cases. I'll chase down the references (sometime in the future...). <mike
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (02/22/85)
In article <257@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: >Now. I am not a Libertarian. I am not a Capitalist. Nor am I a Socialist, >Communist, or any other "-ist" you care to throw at me. I think all >economic systems that exist are bullshit because they fail to measure the >success of an economy by the ONE THING THAT REALLY MATTERS: the standard of >living of those under the system. Tim, I think I disagree with you about what "really matters." Then again, I may not mean the same thing that you do by the phrase "standard of living." What I consider important is free time. How much time do those under a system have where they aren't worrying about where there next meal comes from, where they are going to sleep that night, where to get enough CRAY time to run the gas flow model they are interested in, or doing something that someone else wants them to do. I can't concieve of how standard of living could mean the same as what I mean by free time. Somebody who likes wandering around on the beach, fishing and collecting what the ocean drags in, and dislikes all the things associated with a high-tech society would be better off living in a shack on the beach than the way I live (he can spend more time roaming around on the beach, etc.). However, I have nice modern toys, so I would have to claim a higher standard of living than he has. Likewise, I could give up time I spend doing things I enjoy to make more money, and thus raise my standard of living. But this costs me free time - which I think is more important. Obviously, if I'm spending my time meeting obligations that someone else forces on me, that is cutting into my free time. On the other hand, if I've voluntarily taken on those obligations, then I'm doing something *I* chose to do. These line of thought is what led me to start calling myself a libertarian. Not keeping more of my tax money, or trying to avoid large governments, but because I don't like other people running my life for me. Now, let's go back and look at that last infringement on free time - doing something that someone else wants you to do. Working qualifies, whether you are working for a wage, or are your own boss. You still have to deliver product that *someone else* wants, not that you want. The optimum solution is to not have to work at all. Unfortunately, that usually requires someone else to do work to provide what you consume. But not always; if what you are consuming comes from a sufficiently automated plant, then no other person had to give up their free time to provide for you. My understanding of history is that the freer the market, the faster it automates tasks. This, combined with restraint of trade implying that you are keeping someone from doing what they want to be doing for no good reason, is enough to convince me that the free market is a good thing. From this, the answer to the question "what do we do when you can build a robot to do anything a man can do in a lifetime of training" is simple: switch to a socialist economy. Since you no longer require human labor to keep the economy running, you no longer have to force people to work. Not "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," but "from each according to his wants, to each according to his wants!" <mike
eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) (02/27/85)
> >economic systems fail to measure the > >success of an economy by the ONE THING THAT REALLY MATTERS: the standard of > >living of those under the system. > > What I consider important is free time. How much time do those under a > system have where they aren't worrying about where there next meal comes > from, where they are going to sleep that night, where to get enough CRAY > time to run the gas flow model they are interested in, or doing something > that someone else wants them to do. > > I can't concieve of how standard of living could mean the same as what I > mean by free time. Somebody who likes wandering around on the beach, How about defining 'standard of living' as the fraction of the population that do not HAVE to work. It would be a number from zero to one. A neolithic tribe that must spend 100% of it's time hunting would have a standard of living of zero. In the United States today, something like 24% of the population produce all the physical goods made. Another 10-15% supply all the services needed to mak the present system function. The other 60% are children, retired, people who work because they like to, etc. This would be a standard of living of .6 In the mid-21st century, automation of banks, insurance companies, factory floors, etc. might leave only 10% of the population providing physical goods, and as little as 5% providing services. The standard of living would then be .85. Note that there might be very many more people working. But these people would be working because they wanted to do it, rather than had to do it. Comments, netland? Dani Eder / ssc-vax!eder/ Boeing
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (03/01/85)
In article <457@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: >How about defining 'standard of living' as the fraction of the population >that do not HAVE to work. Two comments. First, this only covers a small fraction of the symbols that fire when I think of "standard of living." I suspect we need another axis or three. Second, I don't think you've quite got the essence of what I meant by "free time," even though you're very close. How about changing it to read "the frction of the time the part population that has to work is expected to work." Ignoring sleep (which is vital to staying alive, and hence can be considered "work"), a neolithic culture is once again near 100%. A post-agricultural society shows a little drop (call it 80%), an early post-industrial society shows another small drop to (figure 6 12 hour days/week) 65%. We're at about 35% now. The trouble with this is part of the time I'm not working, I'm still doing things that I'd rather not be doing - laundry, shopping, preparing food, etc. These all eat into my free time, and push that 35% up significantly. The definition of "percentage that has to work" suffers from similar problems: the percentage freed to do what *they* want to do is different from the percentage who don't have to work. Anybody else have any ideas? <mike
ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) (03/03/85)
> >economic systems fail to measure the > >success of an economy by the ONE THING THAT REALLY MATTERS: the standard of > >living of those under the system. > > What I consider important is free time. I doubt if a man unemployed for three years would place the same emphasis on free time. If you have only just enough money to buy food, pay the rent, the heating bills etc, then what do you do with your surfeit of free time? It takes money to make proper use of free time. ^^^^^ It takes a job to make money. So those least able to use their free time, get the most. Such is western society. Ah, well. -Nigel Gale (resubscribed, God alone knows why)
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (03/04/85)
In article <4943@ukc.UUCP> ncg@ukc.UUCP writes: >> What I consider important is free time. >It takes money to make proper use of free time. >It takes a job to make money. >Such is western society. Ah, well. This is one of the major problems with society today. I hope to live long enough to see it solved. <mike
jlg@lanl.ARPA (03/05/85)
> If you have only just enough money to buy food, pay the rent, the > heating bills etc, then what do you do with your surfeit of free > time? How about go to the public library to learn about skills that might make you more employable. (Of course, I say that because I spend my free time doing just this sort of thing - even though I can afford to do otherwise :-) > It takes money to make proper use of free time. > ^^^^^ Not really (see above). It takes money to perform certain types of recreation, but if your problem is unemployment you should spend your time more productively anyway. > It takes a job to make money. Or a good investment (which also takes money). The first step is a job anyway. > So those least able to use their free time, get the most. > Such is western society. Ah, well. On the contrary. Those most in need of self improvement get the most time to indulge in it. Ah, well - in the east all of these problem never exist: an unemployed person is soon working reducing large rocks to small ones. > -Nigel Gale (resubscribed, God alone knows why) J. Giles
plh@ukma.UUCP (Paul L. Hightower) (03/05/85)
>>How about defining 'standard of living' as the fraction of the population >>that do not HAVE to work. > >...How about changing it to read "the fraction of time the part of the >population that has to work is expected to work." [edited.] > >Ignoring sleep (which is vital to staying alive, and hence can be >considered "work"), a neolithic culture is once again near 100%. A >post-agricultural society shows a little drop (call it 80%), an early >post-industrial society shows another small drop to (figure 6 12 hour >days/week) 65%. We're at about 35% now. Are you sure a neolithic society is near 100% ? According to one book, "Cannibals and Kings" (I forget the author), neolithic societies spent approximately 3 hours a day hunting (men) or gathering & chores (women.) The rest was spent socializing, gossiping, playing, or making war. With the extinction of large land mammals and depletion of easy game, men resorted to agriculture to provide food. Each new step toward "civilization" led to an increasingly long work day, as ever more labor-intensive means of production were employed to increase yield. This process reached its nadir with the Industrial Revolution and 15-hour work days. This century has seen the turning point, as capital-intensive production has finally begun raising leisure again in developed countries. With luck, we'll eventually be as well off as our neolithic ancestors! Paul Hightower University of Kentucky
ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) (03/11/85)
> >> So those least able to use their free time, get the most. >> Such is western society. Ah, well. > >On the contrary. Those most in need of self improvement get the most time >to indulge in it. Ah, well - in the east all of these problem never exist: >an unemployed person is soon working reducing large rocks to small ones. > >> -Nigel Gale (resubscribed, God alone knows why) > > >J. Giles Listen, Smelly, I didn't include the Eastern Block in my sweeping generalisation because I *don't* *know* anything about the east, not because I think these problems don't exist there. While, of course, I know everything about the West. I concede the point about Libraries & self-improvement, though. But I suspect there are people who cannot be improved by books - illiterates, for instance. All of which leads me to the following questions: What happens to Public Libraries in Libertaria? How are Adult Literacy Classes financed? Who decides whether Adult Literacy Classes are worthwhile? -Nigel Gale
nrh@inmet.UUCP (03/17/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics.t / ukc!ncg / 4:29 am Mar 14, 1985 >What happens to Public Libraries in Libertaria? They'd exist, just as free or very cheap medical service exists NOW, because of private donations. My own best guess is that bookstores and charities would operate such things. My understanding is that there's a local PRIVATE library called the Atheneum that's quite nice, but I've NO idea what it costs (I suspect it's not cheap, since a cheap one would compete directly with the Boston Public Library). >How are Adult Literacy Classes financed? This would be a natural P.R. gimmick for bookstores, and schools in general (not to mention private libraries!). Chances are, though, they'd be financed privately, just as most schools would be. Of course, I imagine private groups feeling that high literacy is a good thing would give to organizations offering such classes for the poor. >Who decides whether Adult Literacy Classes are worthwhile? Now we come to a strength of the libertarian position. In a libertarian society, you'd have to find someone to convince that Adult Literacy Classes were worthwhile. It might be merely the illiterate types who wish to read, but you must convince SOMEONE to pay for the classes. (Or, of course, you can give them yourself). By "pay for", I mean that the wherewithal must be provided -- this might be by way of donations of labor, space, and materials, rather than money. But that's about ALL you have to do. In OUR society, you must convince several layers of government that the teachers involved are legit (even if you KNOW they are), that the building meets building code standards, that you are allowing an appropriate ethnic mix into your classes, that you are not overcharging (or underpaying!) that your employees are paying the correct amount of tax, that, if applicable, you are presenting evolution and creation as seriously competing theories about the beginning of the universe. In short, in a free society, you must find benefactors. In a state-dominated society, you must politic, and deal with the outcome of politics.