kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/10/86)
From: campbell%maynard.UUCP@harvisr.HARVARD.EDU
Universal, inexpensive communications yield substantial benefits
both economically, and politically.
Those who receive the benefits should be the ones to pay for them.
Economic example: Sears Roebuck drew most of its early growth from
mail order business from rural customers.
At the expense of nonconsenting others? If so, how do you justify
it?
... despite all the self-righteous breast beating of capitalist
ideologues,
Flattery will get you nowhere.
the single biggest reason for the wealth of the U.S. is not our
economic system, but our agricultural and mineral wealth, tapped
by rural pioneers.
Another fine myth.
Tell that to Mexico. Or does the agricultural and mineral wealth
of the continent stop abruptly at the Mexican border?
Is Japan's recent success due to its adoption of free enterprise?
Or is agricultural and mineral wealth responsible there too? Strange
how no communist countries seem to have any.
... when telephones first started, there WAS competition, and it
DID NOT WORK. Businesses often had to have three, four, or five
phones on each desk, because the private phone companies didn't
interconnect.
You think this might have a little bit to do with the low level of
19th century electronic technology?
Recall also that with the technology of the 19th century it was
impractical to allow more than one phone company to place wires on
telephone poles in most areas.
I won't argue the point. But do you think we would be restricted to
such technology today?
Telephones did not become successful, and never would have, until
a regulated monopoly was established with the charter of providing
universal service.
Various countries have telephone systems with various degrees of
regulation. Without exception, the less regulation, the more
succesful the phone service. Who can say how much more successful
ours would have been had it been as unregulated as, say, the computer
industry?
Of course there is such an entity as 'society'. Just because it
cannot be precisely defined does not mean that it doesn't exist.
What I meant is that it is not meaningful to talk of society as it
it were an entity. People were saying 'society has decided...' and
'it is society's fault that...' and 'society should pay...', etc,
which is not conducive to any kind of discussion since it doesn't
really seem to mean anything.
Now, many objectivists and libertarians like to moan and groan
about how society has no right to "pick my pocket", or "force me
to do something".
See, here you are doing it. What you are talking about is called
'government'. Why not use the word? It isn't all THAT loathsome.
... if you expect to be able to participate in the advantages that
society provides -- culture, economic activity, safety, medicine--
Presto! Now society has a new meaning. It doesn't mean government
in this paragraph. Government supplies none of those except possibly
safety. You can have so much fun when you change the meaning of words
in the middle of an argument.
none of which you can provide all by yourself --
No, I have to voluntarily trade what I can produce for these things.
What does government have to do with that?
... then you must also be willing to contribute your share to
society.
Shazam! Now 'society' means 'government' again! Clearly you don't
mean the people I get these various good things from. I already paid
for them. You mean I should also pay TAXES on them, for a reason
never specified.
I was once an objectivist myself -- in high school. I grew out of
it, ... Objectivism (and its cousin, libertarianism) are smugly
self-satisfying -- just the ticket for young people who are still
struggling with the "leaving the nest" syndrome and identity
construction of adolescence. But they cannot speak to the larger
problems of human society one must face as a fully functioning
member of human civilization.
Wow! Subsumtion! This is the technique used by O'Brien when
brainwhing Winston Smith in George Orwell's _1984_. O'Brien showed
that he CONTAINED Smith, that Smith's every thought, that his whole
mind, was a SUBSET of O'Brien's.
This can be done by saying "I (used to feel | would have felt) that
way (when | if) I was [younger and] (less mature | less wise | more
stupid | less well educated | smug and self righteous) [but I know
better now | but I grew up | but I grew out of it]."
I could equally well make the same argument on the other side. I
won't bother. All I will say is I that I am no adolescent, I am not
struggling with any syndromes, I do not have an identity crisis, and I
feel that I *AM* speaking to the larger problems of human society, and
I *AM* a fully functioning member of human civilization.
I don't know your background, but I strongly suspect you have had
far less experience with human civilization in all its forms than I
have.
...Keith
-------campbell@maynard.UUCP.UUCP (08/17/86)
kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@mc.lcs.mit.edu writes: > From: campbell%maynard.UUCP@harvisr.HARVARD.EDU > > Universal, inexpensive communications yield substantial benefits > both economically, and politically. > > Those who receive the benefits should be the ones to pay for them. It is often the case that everyone, or nearly everyone, benefits, and that it is impossible to quantify the individual benefit received by any one person. The communications (telephone, telegraph, post) and transportation (roads, trains, airline industry) infrastructure are the best-known and most illustrative examples of this. > the single biggest reason for the wealth of the U.S. is not our > economic system, but our agricultural and mineral wealth, tapped > by rural pioneers. > > Another fine myth. > Tell that to Mexico. Or does the agricultural and mineral wealth >of the continent stop abruptly at the Mexican border? I failed to place enough emphasis on the agricultural part of our wealth, which is NOT shared by Mexico (they have nothing like the corn belt), and which is probably more important to us than our mineral wealth. Note also that Mexico's climate makes it extremely difficult (hence more costly and less efficient) to labor outdoors. On mechanized farms that doesn't matter a lot, but farms haven't been mechanized for very long. > Is Japan's recent success due to its adoption of free enterprise? >Or is agricultural and mineral wealth responsible there too? Strange >how no communist countries seem to have any. Japan's economy is at least as regulated as ours. They also have the substantial and peculiar advantage of having been forced by a conqueror to have only a token military establishment, while ours threatens to devour our entire GNP. > ... when telephones first started, there WAS competition, and it > DID NOT WORK. Businesses often had to have three, four, or five > phones on each desk, because the private phone companies didn't > interconnect. > > You think this might have a little bit to do with the low level of >19th century electronic technology? So what? Does that make my political argument invalid? > Recall also that with the technology of the 19th century it was > impractical to allow more than one phone company to place wires > on telephone poles in most areas. > > I won't argue the point. But do you think we would be restricted >to such technology today? Gotcha! I was NOT trying to argue that a particular industry (telephone) should necessarily continue to be a regulated monopoly. I was arguing, and I think you've conceded my point, that there can be perfectly sound reasons for certain industries to be composed of regulated monopolies. Electric power utilities are an example that is still valid today. > Telephones did not become successful, and never would have, until > a regulated monopoly was established with the charter of > providing universal service. > > Various countries have telephone systems with various degrees of >regulation. Without exception, the less regulation, the more >succesful the phone service. Who can say how much more successful >ours would have been had it been as unregulated as, say, the computer >industry? I don't think you can substantiate this statement. Until the early 1970s, Ma Bell was just as regulated as any European PTT. The only difference was in ownership, not regulation. Yes, until the early 1970s the U.S. had the best phone system in the world. But it is not at all clear why this was. I think a strong case could be made for the argument that this was due simply to the sheer size of the Bell System -- it could afford to fund enormously more research and development than could all the European PTTs combined -- and to the comparative wealth of the customer base (the U.S. public) compared to other countries. > Now, many objectivists and libertarians like to moan and groan > about how society has no right to "pick my pocket", or "force me > to do something". > > See, here you are doing it. What you are talking about is called >'government'. Why not use the word? It isn't all THAT loathsome. Government is an integral part of society. Either word would have been valid in my sentence. > ... if you expect to be able to participate in the advantages > that society provides -- culture, economic activity, safety, > medicine-- > > Presto! Now society has a new meaning. It doesn't mean government >in this paragraph. Government supplies none of those except possibly >safety. You can have so much fun when you change the meaning of >words in the middle of an argument. Baloney. Government provides or insures most of your physical safety (police and defense). Government provides economic activity, or at least the tools and framework within which economic activity occur. Government creates money (no flames on this please! I'm making a point about the definitions of society and government, not the gold standard...). Government funds an enormous amount of medical and scientific research. Government obviously doesn't provide *all* of the benefits of society, but it does provide a substantial fraction of them. Most importantly, government provides most of the rules of the game. > No, I have to voluntarily trade what I can produce for these >things. What does government have to do with that? How do you voluntarily trade what you can produce for police protection? Or defense? Or environmental protection? -- Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. ARPA: campbell%maynard.uucp@harvard.ARPA 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA UUCP: {alliant,wjh12}!maynard!campbell (617) 367-6846 -------
kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/23/86)
From: campbell%maynard.UUCP@harvisr.HARVARD.EDU
It is often the case that everyone, or nearly everyone, benefits,
and that it is impossible to quantify the individual benefit
received by any one person. The communications (telephone,
telegraph, post) and transportation (roads, trains, airline
industry) infrastructure are the best-known and most illustrative
examples of this.
I think it is quite possible to quantify the costs and benefits, in
these and all other cases.
> Tell that to Mexico. Or does the agricultural and mineral
>wealth of the continent stop abruptly at the Mexican border?
I failed to place enough emphasis on the agricultural part of our
wealth, which is NOT shared by Mexico (they have nothing like the
corn belt), and which is probably more important to us than our
mineral wealth.
Have you ever seen the Mexican border? It is quite abrupt. On one
side are skyskrapers and a few blocks to the south are hovels. Does
our corn belt extend right to the border? What percent of our GNP is
corn, anyway? And how does wealth from the corn belt get to the US
southwest? And why doesn't it go a few yard further, into Mexico?
The border between the US and Mexico is a political boundary.
Nothing mineral or vegetable suddenly changes at the border. Neither
does the intelligence of the people. Only the political system
changes. So what differences we do see on opposite sides of the
border are clearly due to differences in the political system. In
fact, since much of Mexico's wealth is due to trade with the US and
Japan, the difference is actually much greater than it appears from
looking at the border. Especially since residents of the border
cities in Mexico get much of their income from US tourism.
> Is Japan's recent success due to its adoption of free
>enterprise? Or is agricultural and mineral wealth responsible
>there too? Strange how no communist countries seem to have any.
Japan's economy is at least as regulated as ours.
Which is probably the explanation for why they are only the SECOND
most productive nation. The US is still in first place.
More heavily regulated economies do worse. Totally regulated
economies are total disasters.
They also have the substantial and peculiar advantage of having
been forced by a conqueror to have only a token military
establishment,
True. I am not sure what to do about this. I'm certainly not
comfortable with the idea of a rearmed Japan. Neither are most
Japanese these days. If the US did ask for tribute from Japan to pay
for the US defense umbrella, or if the US said it planned to phase out
its defense of Japan and was asking Japan to rearm, I think Japan
would call our bluff. They know as well as we do that our defense of
Japan is for OUR benefit, not theirs.
Any other country would have simply taken over much or all of Japan
after conquering it. For instance the Soviet Union took over
thousands of square miles of northern Japan despite the fact that they
were only at war with Japan for the final week of World War II, well
after Roosevelt (and spies) told Stalin we had developed the atomic
bomb.
while ours threatens to devour our entire GNP.
It is way too large, but that is an exaggeration. Less than 20
percent of tax money goes for defense. The vast majority of it goes
to various social programs.
> ... when telephones first started, there WAS competition,
> and it DID NOT WORK. ...
>
> You think this might have a little bit to do with the low level
>of 19th century electronic technology?
So what? Does that make my political argument invalid?
When you say something didn't work 100 years ago, and blame it on
capitalism, that is a little strange.
Well, I used a 30 year old computer once and it didn't work very
well. Does this mean that we should adopt socialism? I fail to
follow your logic.
Gotcha! I was NOT trying to argue that a particular industry
(telephone) should necessarily continue to be a regulated
monopoly. I was arguing, and I think you've conceded my point,
that there can be perfectly sound reasons for certain industries
to be composed of regulated monopolies. Electric power utilities
are an example that is still valid today.
I have conceded nothing. You have failed to present any evidence
that there is such a thing as a natural monopoly. In fact there are
several areas where rival electric companies compete, and the rates
there are LOWER than in the rest of the country.
> Now, many objectivists and libertarians like to moan and
> groan about how society has no right to "pick my pocket", or
> "force me to do something".
>
> See, here you are doing it. What you are talking about is
>called 'government'. Why not use the word? It isn't all THAT
>loathsome.
Government is an integral part of society. Either word would have
been valid in my sentence.
The part of society that robs people, excluding street thugs which
are clearly not who you are referring to, is called government.
Simply stating that government, meaning a government with authority
to tax people, is an integral part of society begs the very question
we are debating.
Baloney. Government provides or insures most of your physical
safety (police and defense).
I thought my safety had more to do with most people being honest,
the locks on my doors, most individual's strong disapproval of
burglary (equally harsh laws against drug use have had little effect
precisely because so many individuals do NOT strongly disapprove of
drug use), and the local voluntary neighborhood watch group. The
police are needed very rarely. I have never needed to call them.
National defense is needed only because of the many governments in
the world organized on the principles you advocate.
Government provides economic activity, or at least the tools and
framework within which economic activity occur.
Wrong.
Government creates money ...
Wrong again. They do print certificates and mint coins which
REPRESENT money. But most money these days is not in that form. They
cannot and do not CREATE even one cent.
If they COULD create money, why couldn't they do away with taxes and
with the deficit, by creating enough money to finance all their
programs?
Government funds an enormous amount of medical and scientific
research.
Which should be privately financed.
... Most importantly, government provides most of the rules of
the game.
The rule of the game is simply to never initiate the use of force
against anyone. Government's one true function is to be the referee.
Not to make new inconsistent rules.
How do you voluntarily trade what you can produce for police
protection?
There can be (and are) private police departments.
Or defense?
Defense should be supported by voluntary contributions. Remember
that even the bloated and wasteful defense system we have now takes
less than 20 percent of tax revenues.
Or environmental protection?
Costs of pollution control can be passed on to the consumers of the
products that require it for manufacture.
...Keith
[ Here we go again. All we have to do is get everyone to think like
we do and everything will be fine, eh? Some governments use their
armies for conquest. Saying that they shouldn't do that is a pleasant
but unworkable answer. Libertarian societies will not break out
simultaneously all over the world. What do libertarians do in the
face of naked aggression on a national scale?
How would an army-less libertarian France, lets say, defend itself
from Nazi Germany in 1940? Consider that voluntary contributions are
tied to perceived danger, so that in 1936 (or so) the contributions
would have had to have been very high indeed (when danger was
perceived to be low) to be able to build the factories to build the
tanks, artillery, ships, and so on and hire the men to be trained in
them. Remember, we cannot use hindsight and say "they could have seen
it coming". What everyone saw up until late 1939 was a war all right-
between Germany and Russia.
In answering this please don't trot out the old 'militia' or 'group
of small private armies' stuff - we both know that wouldn't work. And
don't say 'that was then this is now', because if anything, things
have changed for the worse war-wise. So what happens to libertarian
France? Down to defeat? (Don't say "we'll wait for the Amis" - in
this alternate history, the Americans turned isolationist and didn't
enter the European war at all). As usual, I don't have clever
answers, just long questions... - CWM]
-------