kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/05/86)
From: dab@BORAX.LCS.MIT.EDU (David A. Bridgham)
You do have the escape clause that you would only do this if you
expected to get something back of greater value than the future
value of the land being destroyed but this is pretty weak.
I can't think of a better way to decide how to use the land, can
you?
The techniques for assigning values to things like the future
value of a forest is pretty laughable.
Which 'technique' to use is entirely up to the owner of the forest.
Actually those techniques bring me back around to my basic dislike
for capitalism.
You have found a better economic system? Please tell us.
It's assumed that the value of something is how much money you can
get for it.
No it isn't. It is assumed that the value of something is for its
owner to decide, by whatever method he chooses.
For instance in a socialist country, the government chooses what
they consider the most productive use of every bit of land. The
tenants of the land (there are no owners except the government) have
no choice but to go along with this.
But in a capitalist system, if someone owns some forest land, no
matter how much someone else wants to use it, they are not compelled
to sell it. There is an organization called the Wildlife Conservatory
which does just that. Using voluntary donations they have purchased
millions of acres of wilderness, and they refuse to sell it to anyone
for any reason. No such organization could exist under any system but
a capitalist one.
Thinking ahead several hundered years just isn't done. If your
goal is to succeed in the market place it doesn't make sense to be
concerned about that far ahead.
Wrong. It is true than no individual expects to own any land for
centuries. But he does expect to sell it or to leave it to his
children. In any case, he wants it to be worth as much as possible
when he gets rid of it.
Manhattan real estate has gone from being worth 24 dollars to being
worth many billions of dollars, over 360 years. Virtually everyone
who invested in Manhattan real estate over those centuries sold it for
more than they bought it for. But no individual owned it for the full
360 years.
Suppose it was possible to destroy Manhattan real estate. Would
anyone have done so? Or would they have preserved it, knowing it was
worth more to the next investor that way?
It's that goal that I dislike and I dislike it because of how it
makes people so short sighted.
It is up to each individual to decide how short sighted to be.
You keep viewing capitalism through red colored glasses, and you see
it as a distorted version of socialism, with a handful of evil
capitalists in charge, all wearing top hats and smoking cigars as they
decide how to exploit the masses. Nothing could be further from
reality.
It seems much more likely that the point where humans can no
longer survive on this planet will happn before the point where
all of nature collapses.
Could you explain just how something like this could happen? It
seems to me that our standard of living is getting better, not worse.
Do you disagree? Or do you agree but think that it will turn around?
Please tell me the details. I honestly don't see how we could wipe
ourselves out unless there is a nuclear war.
This may sound very strange to someone who thinks in old movie
cliches, but I firmly believe that people now are living in closer
harmony with nature than ever before.
And I see very little feedback that would cause us to stop pushing
before we get to that point.
Feedback is what capitalism is all about. For instance if
wilderness is valuable and is becoming more and more valuable, then
people will be motivated to invest in it and preserve it. And to make
more of it, if possible.
The more I think about it the more I understand the Indians
perplexity about ownership of land. It's a very strange concept.
Land ownership is not only not strange, it is inevitable. If no
person or private organization is allowed to own land, it is not NOT
owned, rather it is owned by the government.
If NOBODY owned a piece of land, presumably it would be ok for
anyone to do anything with it. This is clearly NOT what you want. In
order for land to be preserved, it must be in someone's interest to do
so. You don't come out and say it, but you obviously think that
someone should be the government. I don't.
...Keith
-------dab@BORAX.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/05/86)
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 86 16:36:37 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Suppose it was possible to destroy Manhattan real estate. Would
anyone have done so? Or would they have preserved it, knowing it
was worth more to the next investor that way?
But it was destroyed. This is exactly what I'm talking about. The
value of something in a capitalistic system is only that value which
can be gotten from it in the market place. The life that used to live
there had no free market value and so was swept aside to make room for
that which did.
You keep viewing capitalism through red colored glasses, and you
see it as a distorted version of socialism, with a handful of evil
capitalists in charge, all wearing top hats and smoking cigars as
they decide how to exploit the masses. Nothing could be further
from reality.
Nothing could be further from reality. I view capitalism as people
fighting it out in the market place (competitively not physically)
with their only goal being to succeed in the system. There is no
explicit desire to exploit the masses or to destroy the environment,
but neither is there any reason not to. It is simply that that is an
effective way to win given the system and its definition of winning.
Unfortunately I do not have a better economic system to propose. If
I did you can be sure that I would have let you know about it by now.
So I am not proposing abandoning capitalism just yet; I don't have
anything to replace it with. I'm just pointing out the problems with
this system as I see them. Do you really believe that capitalism is
the ultimate economic system? There can be no better? I'm not being
sarcastic. I have a friend who has said just that to me before, and
meant it.
It seems much more likely that the point where humans can no
longer survive on this planet will happn before the point where
all of nature collapses.
Could you explain just how something like this could happen? It
seems to me that our standard of living is getting better, not
worse. Do you disagree? Or do you agree but think that it will
turn around? Please tell me the details. I honestly don't see how
we could wipe ourselves out unless there is a nuclear war.
I agree (mostly) but I think it will turn around. Actually, I think
that nuclear war is one of the less likely ways in which we'll lose in
a global sense. While it would be hideously destructive, I think
humans would end up surviving, as a species not as individuals, with a
very high probability.
Much more likely is that we pollute the earth so bad that it can no
longer support us. Lack of potable water is already a serious problem
in many places and the water table is dropping steadily in others.
Relying on a very few highly hybridized strains of food crops has a
high potential for lossage due to epidemic, although I can't see this
one thing doing us all in. But apparently the same problem exists in
some animals and right now there is such a disease hitting many of the
chickens on the east coast.
In truth, I don't see the whole human race being eradicated by any
of these. I do see the population being drastically and forceably
reduced. When it happens, it will not be a pleasant time and people's
standard of living will certainly get worse.
This may sound very strange to someone who thinks in old movie
cliches, but I firmly believe that people now are living in closer
harmony with nature than ever before.
Name calling? Sigh. You're right though, it does sound strange.
Milk comes from a cardboard carton, meat is just food you buy at the
store not the flesh of a once living animal (and most people can make
no sense at all of the suggestion that plants are the same way), the
call of the loon is considered haunting, and the whistling of a
snipe's tail feathers is described as eerie.
Land ownership is not only not strange, it is inevitable. If no
person or private organization is allowed to own land, it is not
NOT owned, rather it is owned by the government.
If NOBODY owned a piece of land, presumably it would be ok for
anyone to do anything with it. This is clearly NOT what you want.
In order for land to be preserved, it must be in someone's interest
to do so. You don't come out and say it, but you obviously think
that someone should be the government. I don't.
...Keith
That is obvious only to you my friend. I don't come out and say it
because I don't believe it. I don't trust the government to do
*anything* right.
Dave
-------kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/05/86)
From: "James B. VanBokkelen" <JBVB@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
You don't want big corporations throwing their weight around, like
arranging their rates so their competitors get undercut where they
have competition, and their customers get raped where they don't.
I would prefer that they don't, just as I would prefer that people
don't smoke and use dangerous drugs. But I don't think that *I*
should have veto power over behavior I don't like.
You do want a land-owner to be able to do *anything* he wants with
his property, even to destroying all life on it.
Who else should be allowed to decide? Who should have veto power
over the landowner's decisions?
THese come into conflict.
I would like to see less smoking. A ban on tobacco advertising
would certainly do this. So I would be pleased such a ban. But I
oppose the ban. Yes, there is a conflict. Truly supporting freedom
of speech means supporting it even when the speaker is saying
something uttely vile. Similarly, truly supporting individual rights
including property rights (and can there be any rights without
property rights?) means supporting the right of a landowner to do
things I don't like with his land.
Please understand that there is an enormous difference between
supporting a right and agreeing with how an individual chooses to
excercise it. There is an enormous difference between disapproving of
a behavior and supporting a law against it.
Reader's Digest refuses to allow tobacco advertisements. I applaud
this exercise of their rights. And I buy their magazine every month
partly to show my support. If they had instead chosen to ban
advertisements by any minority owned firm I would be dismayed, and
would refuse to buy the magazine, and would advocate a boycott. But I
would support their RIGHT in EITHER case.
You are free to boycott dealing with someone whose conduct you find
reprehensible. You are free to try to talk others into also
boycotting the individual or the corporation.
Suppose Nelson Bunker Hunt had succeeded, and succeeded with gold
or platinum instead of silver. He then owns almost *all* of it in
the world.
Not likely. The more he owned, the more the remainder would cost.
Other investors would notice, and would buy and would refuse to sell.
He was not trying to own ALL the silver. He only wanted to own a
sufficient percentage of it that its price would go up by a few
percent. Then he would quickly sell it at the higher price.
He was very wealthy, but not even he could afford to buy several
percent of the silver in the world. He borrowed enormous amounts of
money to do so.
This is a risky game. It depends on being able to outguess the
other investors. He played it and lost. The price went up more
slowly than he thought when he bought the silver. The price went down
more quickly then he thought when he sold it.
What is the alternative to allowing people to play this game? Do
you advocate nobody but the government being allowed to own silver?
Seems to me that policy simply trades the remote possibility of a
partial monopoly for the certainty of a (government) monopoly. And
does so at the expense of individual liberties. I fail to see the
sense in that.
...Keith
-------dab@BORAX.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/05/86)
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 86 16:36:37 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Suppose it was possible to destroy Manhattan real estate. Would
anyone have done so? Or would they have preserved it, knowing it
was worth more to the next investor that way?
But it was destroyed. This is exactly what I'm talking about. The
value of something in a capitalistic system is only that value which
can be gotten from it in the market place. The life that used to live
there had no free market value and so was swept aside to make room for
that which did.
You keep viewing capitalism through red colored glasses, and you
see it as a distorted version of socialism, with a handful of evil
capitalists in charge, all wearing top hats and smoking cigars as
they decide how to exploit the masses. Nothing could be further
from reality.
Nothing could be further from reality. I view capitalism as people
fighting it out in the market place (competitively not physically)
with their only goal being to succeed in the system. There is no
explicit desire to exploit the masses or to destroy the environment,
but neither is there any reason not to. It is simply that that is an
effective way to win given the system and its definition of winning.
Unfortunately I do not have a better economic system to propose. If
I did you can be sure that I would have let you know about it by now.
So I am not proposing abandoning capitalism just yet; I don't have
anything to replace it with. I'm just pointing out the problems with
this system as I see them. Do you really believe that capitalism is
the ultimate economic system? There can be no better? I'm not being
sarcastic. I have a friend who has said just that to me before, and
meant it.
It seems much more likely that the point where humans can no
longer survive on this planet will happn before the point where
all of nature collapses.
Could you explain just how something like this could happen? It
seems to me that our standard of living is getting better, not
worse. Do you disagree? Or do you agree but think that it will
turn around? Please tell me the details. I honestly don't see how
we could wipe ourselves out unless there is a nuclear war.
I agree (mostly) but I think it will turn around. Actually, I think
that nuclear war is one of the less likely ways in which we'll lose in
a global sense. While it would be hideously destructive, I think
humans would end up surviving, as a species not as individuals, with a
very high probability.
Much more likely is that we pollute the earth so bad that it can no
longer support us. Lack of potable water is already a serious problem
in many places and the water table is dropping steadily in others.
Relying on a very few highly hybridized strains of food crops has a
high potential for lossage due to epidemic, although I can't see this
one thing doing us all in. But apparently the same problem exists in
some animals and right now there is such a disease hitting many of the
chickens on the east coast.
In truth, I don't see the whole human race being eradicated by any
of these. I do see the population being drastically and forceably
reduced. When it happens, it will not be a pleasant time and people's
standard of living will certainly get worse.
This may sound very strange to someone who thinks in old movie
cliches, but I firmly believe that people now are living in closer
harmony with nature than ever before.
Name calling? Sigh. You're right though, it does sound strange.
Milk comes from a cardboard carton, meat is just food you buy at the
store not the flesh of a once living animal (and most people can make
no sense at all of the suggestion that plants are the same way), the
call of the loon is considered haunting, and the whistling of a
snipe's tail feathers is described as eerie.
Land ownership is not only not strange, it is inevitable. If no
person or private organization is allowed to own land, it is not
NOT owned, rather it is owned by the government.
If NOBODY owned a piece of land, presumably it would be ok for
anyone to do anything with it. This is clearly NOT what you want.
In order for land to be preserved, it must be in someone's interest
to do so. You don't come out and say it, but you obviously think
that someone should be the government. I don't.
...Keith
That is obvious only to you my friend. I don't come out and say it
because I don't believe it. I don't trust the government to do
*anything* right.
Dave
-------kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/05/86)
From: dab@BORAX.LCS.MIT.EDU (David A. Bridgham)
The value of something in a capitalistic system is only that value
which can be gotten from it in the market place.
Not true. In a capitalist system, the value of something is
whatever the owner decides it is. If the owner of a piece of land
decides that the deer that live on the land are worth more than what
developers are willing to pay for the land, then they cannot compel
him to sell it.
The life that used to live [on Manhattan] had no free market value
and so was swept aside to make room for that which did.
What do you perceive the value of wildlife as being? Manhattan is
just one small island. Do you really think the world would be a
better place if it had been left wilderness? A few extra square miles
of wilderness rather than a wealthy city? Is development EVER
justified, or should all land remain in a state of wilderness? If
development is never justified, does this mean people shouldn't build
houses, but should huddle in caves or perhaps in trees (if they are
careful not to damage the trees)? If development is sometimes
justified, how does one decide when? In a free system, the owner of
the land decides when it is justified. In a socialist system, the
government does. In a fascist system, industries and/or individuals
favored by the government get to decide. Which of these do you
advocate?
I view capitalism as people
fighting it out in the market place (competitively not physically)
with their only goal being to succeed in the system.
People have many different goals. Capitalism is the only system
that allows people to pursue any goal they please (except the goal of
harming others).
Most of us do not wish to become millionaires. At least, we don't
wish for it to such an extent that we are willing to sacrifice to the
extent necessary. I value free time and friendship more than money.
If I had less money, I might value money more. If I had more, I might
value it less. But in no case would I value money to such an extent
that I was willing to give up everything else to gain more of it.
Consider people who win millions in lotteries. Most of them do not
change their habits very much. Most of them do not even quit their
jobs, however little those jobs pay.
There is no explicit desire ... to destroy the environment, but
neither is there any reason not to.
There are as many reasons not to as there are people who choose not
to. It is up to each individual how important the wilderness is. The
wilderness has no chance of being preserved unless some people value
it. Obviously, many people do. Including you and I. Does it really
make any sense to say that people as a group oppose destruction of
wilderness but people as individuals do not? Why should it be up to
government at all? Government didn't create wilderness, government
(usually) doesn't destroy wilderness. What does government have to do
with it at all?
So I am not proposing abandoning capitalism just yet; I don't have
anything to replace it with. I'm just pointing out the problems
with this system as I see them. Do you really believe that
capitalism is the ultimate economic system? There can be no
better?
Well, it depends on what is meant by better. Two obvious
definitions:
1) Providing the greatest happiness and fullfilment for the greatest
number of people.
2) Providing the greatest liberty to the greatest number of people.
I don't think capitalism has any competition under either
definition.
I can conceive of a possible future competitor under category 1. I
can imagine that someday a supercomputer will be built that is
completely benevolent and has such intelligence and mental capacity
that it is as familiar with each person as the person's closest
friends. In fact, the system would BE many people's closest friend.
This system would then be able to figure out what the optimal
distribution of resources would be. It would tell you that someone
would come by to take away your new stereo, but you wouldn't object,
because you would know that you will soon be told to take something of
even greater value (to you) from someone else. The computer would
tell you where to work and what to do there.
If such a thing could ever be built and programmed, and if it could
somehow be guaranteed to always be benevolent, never break down, be
sabotage-proof, be cracker-proof, etc, etc, then I might believe that
it could result in a higher degree of total personal happiness in the
world. Assuming that people of the future do not mind being treated
like children.
Nevertheless, even if such a thing were to be possible someday, I
would still oppose it. The value of personal liberty is inestimable.
While it might succeed at criterion 1, it would certainly fail at
criterion 2. And it would prevent any possibility of future
innovation, unless we assume that it is smarter in every way and more
creative in every way than every person alive put together and every
person ever to be born EVER, put together. I don't know how we could
possibly know that, even if it was true. And if it WAS true, I would
find it a source of sorrow, not joy. There would be no possible
purpose in life. One might as well have a circuit wired to one's
pleasure center and spend one's final hours in total ecstacy plugged
into the wall socket, not noticing that one is dying for lack of food
and water.
In socialism, the government takes the place of my hypothetical
supercomputer. Needless to say, it does a pretty poor job of it. If
a government could somehow be more intelligent in every way and more
knowledgable in every way than all of the citizens put together, and
if it is also benevolent (unlike every socialist state I have heard
of) then maybe you could have a socialist system that is as good as a
capitalist system. Except that that most important element -
freedom - would be missing.
People who argue against capitalism often say something like "FOO
should be done, <describe at length why the lack of FOO is bad> and
capitalism won't do it". This is pointless unless they also explain
why no free person or voluntary organization would ever do FOO (even
though FOO is essential!), and why a government would NECESSARILY do
FOO, even if none of the people the government consists of or
represents would ever do FOO.
Much more likely is that we pollute the earth so bad that it can
no longer support us. Lack of potable water is already a serious
problem in many places ...
The rarer clean water gets, the more valuable it is, and the more
incentive people have to not pollute it. Same with every other
threatened resource.
I haven't noticed any lack of clean water, despite being in the
middle of a rare drought. I know that there are water shortages out
west, where large government water programs provide farmers with
enormous amounts of water for less than market value. Is it any
wonder that consumption goes up and supply goes down?
Relying on a very few highly hybridized strains of food crops has
a high potential for lossage due to epidemic, ...
Right. For instance the Irish Potato famine in the 1840s. This
lesson has been learned, and I don't think this sort of thing is a
major problem anymore.
But apparently the same problem exists in some animals and right
now there is such a disease hitting many of the chickens on the
east coast.
I haven't noticed any increase in chicken prices lately.
In truth, I don't see the whole human race being eradicated by
any of these. I do see the population being drastically and
forceably reduced.
By increased chicken prices? By more expensive water in the west?
The only real pollution disaster in the past ten years was the
accident in India. I don't want to make light of the death of 2500,
but do you really think one such accident a decade, or even one such
accident a week, could wipe out or even seriously reduce the world
population?
This may sound very strange to someone who thinks in old
movie cliches, but I firmly believe that people now are living
in closer harmony with nature than ever before.
Name calling? Sigh. You're right though, it does sound
strange. Milk comes from a cardboard carton, meat is just food
you buy at the store not the flesh of a once living animal
Yes, this is in closer harmony with nature. Nature does not consist
merely of trees and cobwebs and quicksand and mosquitos. Pasteurizing
milk is the best way to come to terms with the natural bacteria found
naturally in natural milk. Air conditioning is based on the same
natural laws that cooling by sweating is based on. Having meat pre-
packaged and sometimes even pre-cooked is a natural division of
natural human labor, allowing more people to have more time to do
other things than butchering.
When people are happy and comfortable, we are living in harmony with
nature. When people are starving and miserable and dying of disease
and opression, we are not living in harmony with nature. It makes no
difference either way whether it is done in a tent or in a skyscraper.
It's the same nature either way, and one ignores the laws of nature at
one's own extreme peril.
(and most people can make no sense at all of the suggestion that
plants are the same way), ...
Surely you aren't saying it is unnatural to eat plants and animals.
Animals do it, so it must be natural.
What would you suggest people eat instead?
In order for land to be preserved, it must be in someone's
interest to do so. You don't come out and say it, but you
obviously think that someone should be the government. I
don't.
That is obvious only to you my friend. I don't come out and say
it because I don't believe it. I don't trust the government to do
*anything* right.
Then who should do it? You say that wilderness must be preserved,
and you claim that freely acting indivuduals and voluntary
organizations (i.e. capitalism) will not preserve it. Who else will
do the preserving but government? Who are you saying should do it?
...Keith
-------