fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (Barry S. Fagin) (10/22/86)
I usually like to limit the number of postings on a particular issue to three, (posting, rebuttal, and reply), so that the net doesn't get bogged down in long debates that people quickly lose interest in. However, since Rich took the time to carefully respond to my posting, I guess I'll do the same. Rich writes that large institutions are the principal source of injustice in America, and believes that libertarian ideas fail to address this. >> Me > Rich Cowan (COWAN@xx.lcs.mit.edu) Me > ... I want to recommend three books: > 2) Vance Packard's "The Hidden Persuaders" (This one, I haven't > read, but I think it's on advertising.) It is, and I have read it. It deals with "subliminal seduction"; advertising techniques that attempt to manipulate the subconscious. If the topic arises, we can discuss this too. > ... people's actions are constrained by the > institutions with which (and within which) they interact. Absolutely, although I'd phrase it as "people's actions are constrained by and themselves constrain the actions of other people". > if you grow up in America today, you will likely be pushed into > providing lots of unnecessary goods and services for the > consumerist society, or weapons to protect the consumerist society, > or research to justify the weapons industry. But what's wrong with > that? C'mon, Rich. Just what are 'unnecessary goods'? Unnecessary as in 'unnecessary for survival'? As in 'shouldn't be produced?' In whose opinion? Yours? Mine? The State Office of Industrial Production? Your view of soceity seems reasonably consistent, but I don't think you've thought about it enough. Why is it so difficult for you to conceive of people having notions of value different from yours? Isn't it true that if every (or even most) consumers in America believed as you do, then all these 'unnecessary' goods would just dry up an blow away? Their very persistence suggests that your notion of 'necessary' is hardly universal. You seem to be saying that here in America we're being manipulated by these large "institutions" into unproductive economic activity. You would probably cite as evidence our consumption of toothpaste in a pump, cheese flavored dog food, VCR's, and microwave ovens. Such gross manipulation is, of course, possible, but I don't think it is correct. What is instead happening is exactly what you'd expect when free human beings are allowed to interact economically: you get a wide range of goods and services. Furthermore, *every* person will find at least some of them useless and unnecessary. That's part of what living in a free society is all about. I understand your point of view quite well; I'm very familiar with Galbraith's views on the "consumerist society". I don't think you understand mine, describing what the results of a large, diverse group of persons interacting economically might be. I'd ask that you think carefully about the problem of determining what goods are 'necessary'. There's only one mechanism for doing this compatible with a very basic, natural definition of human liberty, and that's the free market. --Barry
fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (11/14/86)
I usually like to limit the number of postings on a particular issue to three, (posting, rebuttal, and reply), so that the net doesn't get bogged down in long debates that people quickly lose interest in. However, since Rich took the time to carefully respond to my posting, I guess I'll do the same. Rich writes that large institutions are the principal source of injustice in America, and believes that libertarian ideas fail to address this. >> Me > Rich Cowan (COWAN@xx.lcs.mit.edu) Me > ... I want to recommend three books: > 2) Vance Packard's "The Hidden Persuaders" (This one, I haven't > read, but I think it's on advertising.) It is, and I have read it. It deals with "subliminal seduction"; advertising techniques that attempt to manipulate the subconscious. If the topic arises, we can discuss this too. > ... people's actions are constrained by the > institutions with which (and within which) they interact. Absolutely, although I'd phrase it as "people's actions are constrained by and themselves constrain the actions of other people". > if you grow up in America today, you will likely be pushed into > providing lots of unnecessary goods and services for the > consumerist society, or weapons to protect the consumerist society, > or research to justify the weapons industry. But what's wrong with > that? C'mon, Rich. Just what are 'unnecessary goods'? Unnecessary as in 'unnecessary for survival'? As in 'shouldn't be produced?' In whose opinion? Yours? Mine? The State Office of Industrial Production? Your view of soceity seems reasonably consistent, but I don't think you've thought about it enough. Why is it so difficult for you to conceive of people having notions of value different from yours? Isn't it true that if every (or even most) consumers in America believed as you do, then all these 'unnecessary' goods would just dry up an blow away? Their very persistence suggests that your notion of 'necessary' is hardly universal. You seem to be saying that here in America we're being manipulated by these large "institutions" into unproductive economic activity. You would probably cite as evidence our consumption of toothpaste in a pump, cheese flavored dog food, VCR's, and microwave ovens. Such gross manipulation is, of course, possible, but I don't think it is correct. What is instead happening is exactly what you'd expect when free human beings are allowed to interact economically: you get a wide range of goods and services. Furthermore, *every* person will find at least some of them useless and unnecessary. That's part of what living in a free society is all about. I understand your point of view quite well; I'm very familiar with Galbraith's views on the "consumerist society". I don't think you understand mine, describing what the results of a large, diverse group of persons interacting economically might be. I'd ask that you think carefully about the problem of determining what goods are 'necessary'. There's only one mechanism for doing this compatible with a very basic, natural definition of human liberty, and that's the free market. --Barry -------
fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (11/14/86)
Rich Cowan writes: > ... serving the needs of institutions. To show why this is "bad," > I must give some examples of how institutions can affect BASIC > human needs. How about: > -The freedom to breath [sic] : Before federal emissions standards, > automobile companies like General Motors (with oil companies) were > perfectly content to produce inefficient cars that guzzled leaded > gas and polluted the air. Lots of health hazards from this have > been greatly reduced by regulation. Why concentrate on institutions? People smoke cigarettes and burn garbage, activities just as contemptible as industrial pollution if they damage another person. In any case, the problem of air pollution arises because property rights aren't protected *enough*, not because they're overenforced. The only right way to regulate pollution is to hold individuals (and, yes, institutions) responsible for the damages they cause other persons. The problem with standards is that they could be too severe (see any problems with forbidding *all* pollution?) or too lax (see any problems with allowing too much?). The only way to get the balance right is throught the protection of property rights, concentrating on the individuals involved, and *not* through arbitrary political feat. As for General Motors being perfectly content to produce inefficient cars, that's only part of the story. General Motors was perfectly happy to make gas guzzlers because *THE PRICE OF GASOLINE WAS CONTROLLED*. Why should consumers worry about fuel economy when gas sells for a quarter a gallon? Never mind that prices should reflect the abundance or scarcity of a commodity, we've got to protect those big bad institutions from raping our poor stupid consumer, right? I have no doubt that the few intelligent policymakers opposed to gasoline price controls in the sixties and seventies were shouted down by well-meaning people with your beliefs, Rich, who simply didn't understand how free markets work, or how important they are. Contrast this with the Japanese. While we were living in our fantasy world of cheap, controlled gasoline, they were paying a buck a gallon. While it's true that gasoline is in general more expensive in Japan because they import all their oil, the fact remains that they knew just how much gasoline was worth, and the consumer (who's not as dopey as you think) wanted the most fuel-efficient car he could get. Moral: if you're really interested in getting the right things produced, Rich, you ought to let the market work. > -The freedom to drink clean water: There are unsolved serious > problems with public water supplies all over the country -- hence > the growth in popularity of bottled water. The amount of inorganic > garbage our society generates, and ultimately dumps in landfills, > contributes directly to this problem. Quite true. *Public* drinking water has problems precisely because it is *public*; it belongs to everybody, so it belongs to nobody. Water supplies that are privately own can be protected from pollution through the tort system. The same with landfills; land that noone has an incentive to preserve won't be preserved. Isn't it interesting, Rich, that the institutional problems you point out all have to do with the absence of private property rights: public drinking water, public air, public landfills? > -The freedom to enjoy nature: The amazon jungles are being > decimated, in part by McDonald's, which needs more space to raise > beef. Wrongo, Rich. The amazon jungles are being decimated by South American *governments* (a class of institution you curiously avoid), because they need the money and the jungles are not privately owned. Private ownership of natural resources is the *only* to protect and preserve your "freedom to enjoy nature". Could the U.S. Government or lumber industry deforest the millions of acres owned by the Nature Conservancy? Not on your life. > -Survival: My right to live is being threatened by a nuclear > balance of terror, perpetuated and intensified by the economic > interests of military contractors who exaggerate the vulnerability > of the US deterrent. I agree. > I could go on, but I think that these examples aptly illustrate that > we can't trust "free enterprise" to take care of all our concerns. Au contrare, they show that you don't understand what "free enterprise" is. Most of the concerns you point out can be addressed quite effectively through the marketplace and property rights. --Barry -------
fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (11/20/86)
Rich Cowan writes: > when Barry says: >> freedom to choose does not mean the ability to choose. It means >> the freedom to choose from what others freely wish to part with. > he suggests that everything we are choosing from is privatized, that > someone owns it, and that we can be "free" to choose it without > having the "ability" -- i.e. financial resources -- to do so! Basically correct. Ability, however, isn't necessarily financial resources, only the consent of the other party or parties. I require no money to get people to give charitably to me, to marry me, or to publish my letter to the editor in a newspaper. I require only the appropriate consent. The fact that money is often required simply shows what motivates human beings. > Would Barry Fagin therefore agree that > -Clean water be restricted only to those who can afford to buy > bottled water? No, although I do think that the right way to get clean water is to use the market and property rights. Allow cities to own their own water supplies, allow people to own them and have governments pay them fair market value, and so on. And, of course, I'd be delighted to hear your suggestions for providing "clean water for all". > -Clean air be restricted to those who can build air conditioned, > filtered environments to protect them 365 days a year? No, see above and previous postings. > -Nature be restricted to private parks for a select elite that pays > high membership fees to protect the parks from commercial > development? This is almost what we have now, actually. Our national parks are paid for by the many, enjoyed by the few. People who enjoy nature should be the ones to bear the costs of owning and maintaining the land in a pristine state. The right way to enjoy nature is to do it through a framework of liberty: privately owned parks financed by user's fees and contributions. And this isn't so bad, Rich. You might even like it; the hiking and camping permits issued by the Nature Conservancy are cheaper than those at Yellowstone. In fact, private ownership as the best way to environmental protection is the wave of the future; the previously mentioned Nature Conservancy, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Audobon Society, and the Center for Political Economy and Natural Resources are all embracing private ownership as the best way to preserve and protect nature. > -Survival be restricted to the few that can afford to be sent into > space and live on a space station, or on Mars? Nope. Personally, I think government should provide law enforcement, national defense, and bare necessities, but even these functions can be contracted out to the private sector. In any case, so much of what government does is harmful that once an appreciable portion of it is stopped, the resulting prosperous society will render survival and poverty moot for an incredibly vast majority of Americans. > Barry, I have a question for you. How, under YOUR ideas for how > "human beings and their economic institutions" should ideally > interact, "deciding on their own what they wish to sell and under > what terms," can we be assured that the environment won't be > corrupted, or that the planet won't be destroyed ... Or do you deny > the existance [sic] of the problems I mention? I hope I have answered this adequately in my previous comments. --Barry -------
fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (12/15/86)
Rich Cowan writes: > I mention a few man-made needs: > -The right to education. (threatened by cutting funds for public > schools, which sends people to private schools, further decreasing > public school support) (Is this a "right" or a "need"? There's a difference. For the sake of argument, I'll assume you mean it's a "right".) This so-called right is incompatible with another, more fundamental right: the right to be free from having forced used against you (having harmed noone, of course). But, alas, I have to live in the real world, where people tolerate such contradictory notions, so I'll leave that line of argument alone for now. Cutting funds for public schools does indeed send people to private schools. Why is this bad? Doesn't this depend on how affordable private schools are? If 90% of the population could afford to send their children to private schools in a free society, would coercively financed public education still be a "man-made need". How about 95%? 99%? If we absolutely must have "public" education (a dubious conjecture at best), the best way to do it is through a voucher system and for-profit schools (though if public schools can compete effectively for parent's vouchers that's OK). The point is that there are lots of alternatives to the current insanity of massively centralized education financed through taxation. The current system is *not* essential to the well-being of America. > -The right of women to walk city streets without fearing sexual > assault. (threatened by advertising which establishes rules for > social relations which, among other things, cause men to view women, > and women to view themselves, as sexual objects.) I'm always reluctant to concede a right to freedom from fear. After all, some people are afraid of blacks; can laws be passed forbidding blacks to walk the streets at night? Or consider another more realistic example: here in Berkeley, we have a well-known resident with an extremely rare skin disease that has horribly disfigured his face. He is extremely frightening to look at; children often burst out into tears, people cross the street to avoid him, and so forth. And yet, to pass laws to address their concerns would violate some very basic rights of this man. So I guess I'm not sure about the freedom from fear of sexual assault. What are reasonable fears, and what are irrational ones? In any case, advertising doesn't establish rules for social relations, though it may try. Nor can it "cause" men to view women and women to view themselves as sexual objects. People are creatures of free will, who can be influenced but who make the final decision themselves. And, of course, if you're really as ticked off as you claim then boycott the product! Get enough people on your side, and we'll start seeing the kind of ads you want to see. > -The right to a job that can pay for affordable housing, > transportation, and food. There is simply no such right, or at least none that has a basis in the real, actual nature of human beings. Refering to it as a 'right' is standard fare for liberals during an election year, but it's just sheer nonsense. What it really is is an "entitlement", and what is actually being said is "every able-bodied person in our society that is entitled to exchange his or her labor for as much money as is necessary for housing, transportation, and food". This reasoning is simply incompatible with the basic American notion of liberty. Who decides what affordable is? Who decides how much labor is worth? Who decides what should be produced? Rich, if your really so concerned about institutions, consider those necessary to set up and guarantee the "right to a job that can pay for affordable housing etc. etc.". The really ironic thing is that it is the free market that makes the best decisions regarding what should be produced and how much it is worth. Of course no one person agrees 100% with the result, but at least such things are decided among consenting adults, and not through the exercise of political power. It ain't perfect, its just the best system we have, and the only one compatible with human liberty. > whom their actions affect. (Executives oppose full-employment > legislation and tolerate high structural unemployment because it > creates a favorable market for hiring people.) ... Do you actually believe that "full employment" in any meaningful sense can be guaranteed by legislation? In that case, why stop there? Why not legislate cheap food and housing, safe energy, and healthy families? > OK, Barry, now it's your turn to respond. But I hope you'll do > more than just make quick assumptions about implications of my > views and describe how bad they are. I hope I did. > I want to hear how your libertarian philosophy can > solve the problems I mentioned above. I hope I showed this very thing. To sum up, Rich's main point seems to be that large institutions insulated from the consequences of their actions have come to dominate our lives, and that this is the central issue which we must address in order to make a better world. Rich believes that libertarian ideas cannot address this effectively. My reply is twofold: 1) The problems that Rich pointed out are in fact effectively addressed through the libertarian concepts of private property rights. In particular, many modern environmental groups are applying this strategy with great success. 2) Rich is in the curious position of preaching against the dangers of large institutions, and yet cannot have the entitlements he holds so dear (public education, "rights" to jobs, etc.) without some sort of institution with the power to impose its will on those who disagree with it. The kind of society he envisions cannot be brought about without a large, entrenched political body in charge of distributing wealth. Such institutions are far more destructive than the most malevolent corporation. --Barry -------
csanders@rutgers.rutgers.edu@amdcad.UUCP (01/20/87)
fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU writes: > >As for General Motors being perfectly content to produce >inefficient cars, that's only part of the story. General Motors >was perfectly happy to make gas guzzlers because *THE PRICE >OF GASOLINE WAS CONTROLLED*. Why should consumers worry >about fuel economy when gas sells for a quarter a gallon? >Never mind that prices should reflect the abundance or scarcity >of a commodity, we've got to protect those big bad institutions >from raping our poor stupid consumer, right? I have no >doubt that the few intelligent policymakers opposed to >gasoline price controls in the sixties and seventies were >shouted down by well-meaning people with your beliefs, Rich, >who simply didn't understand how free markets work, or how >important they are. When was the price of gasoline controlled? Sure, the price of American oil was controlled until the late 70's/early 80's, but that didn't stop OPEC from quadrupling the price in 1973 or doubling it again in 1979. >Contrast this with the Japanese. While we were living in >our fantasy world of cheap, controlled gasoline, they were >paying a buck a gallon. While it's true that gasoline is >in general more expensive in Japan because they import all >their oil, the fact remains that they knew just how much >gasoline was worth, and the consumer (who's not as dopey >as you think) wanted the most fuel-efficient car he could >get. Moral: if you're really interested in getting the >right things produced, Rich, you ought to let the market >work. I don't know about Japan, but gasoline is so expensive in Europe because the government imposes high taxes on it. I agree that the market can solve many problems; OPEC certainly learned that after its high prices made it economical for non-OPEC nations to drill for oil. >> -The freedom to drink clean water: There are unsolved serious >> problems with public water supplies all over the country -- hence >> the growth in popularity of bottled water. The amount of inorganic >> garbage our society generates, and ultimately dumps in landfills, >> contributes directly to this problem. >Quite true. *Public* drinking water has problems precisely because >it is *public*; it belongs to everybody, so it belongs to nobody. >Water supplies that are privately own can be protected from pollution >through the tort system. The same with landfills; land that noone >has an incentive to preserve won't be preserved. Isn't it >interesting, Rich, that the institutional problems you point out all >have to do with the absence of private property rights: public >drinking water, public air, public landfills? A great many of the toxic waste dumps that are leaking into the groundwater system are on private property. Companies such as Aerojet General and Fairchild just bury drums full of waste on their own property to avoid the expense of sending it to an approved landfill. Are they exercising their private property rights? > >--Barry -- Craig Anderson Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (408) 749-3007 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!csanders #include <disclaimer.h> -------
paul@dual.UUCP.UUCP (01/28/87)
> The really ironic thing is that it is the free market that > makes the best decisions regarding what should be produced > and how much it is worth. Of course no one person agrees > 100% with the result, but at least such things are decided > among consenting adults, and not through the exercise of > political power. It ain't perfect, its just the best system > we have, and the only one compatible with human liberty. This is typical Libertarian bullshit. The free enterprise system created slavery in this and many other countries. I don't consider this compatible with human liberty. Also slavery was not stopped by a bunch of Libertarians either. Paul Wilcox-Baker