kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (07/29/86)
Return-Path: <@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 86 22:30:25 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Technology, wealth, and liberty
To: steven@LL-XN.ARPA
cc: KIN%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: steven@ll-xn.ARPA (Steven Lee)
Consider a wheatfield. In spring, a farmer sows wheat. S/he
irrigates and fertilizes as necessary. A typical seed responds
by growing prodigously, putting forth fine kernels on a sturdy
stalk. What happens to its creation? The farmer takes it.
Imagine the rest of the biological kingdom outraged: humans
don't create honey, bananas, wheat, or fish--yet they steal
the products of the labor of others.
What is the human response? "But I was the one who provided
the environment." Exactly.
Likewise, communities provide environments to individual humans:
education, social structure, an economy, jobs, capital and
material resources, a judicial system, and much more.
Fascinating argument. It only applies if you equate humans with
plants and animals, though. Replace the plants and animals with
blacks and 'environment' with 'plantation' and you have just justified
slavery.
There is no consistent moral framework in which plants and animals
are considered to be at the human level. There is a consistent moral,
or I should say immoral, framework in which humans are considered to
be at the plant and animal level. You just described it. It is the
way most of mankind has lived for ages. It is the way most of mankind
lives now, for that matter.
Farmers could be said to "tax" wheatfields and beehives. Likewise
communities "tax" individuals for the community's "investment" in
them.
The word 'enslave' or 'rob' fits better than 'tax'. But I admit it
is only a difference of scale. Your argument would seem to justify
any kind of oppression. Your argument would seem to legitimize
anyone's authority over anyone else. Kings, Churches, Emperors,
Fuerhers, Czars, Premiers, all would seem justified in whatever they
choose to do to the rest of us.
For ages it was believed that subservience to whoever seems to be in
charge is the only way to live. Today we know better.
Also, communities are willing to invest in projects like enormous
dams because even if the return from selling the electrical power
does not cover the cost of the dam, making abundant, low-cost
energy available spurs other enterprises, raising additional tax
revenues which make the dam profitable from the community's point
of view.
I assume you mean governments, not communities. There is no such
thing as a community, only individuals, governments, and various
voluntary organizations.
Governments may be willing to invest in a dam. But they invest
OTHER people's money. Against their will. This is what I object to.
If what is payed for the power does not cover the cost of the dam,
then the rates should be raised. If this causes demand to drop faster
than revenues increase, then the dam is unprofitable and should never
have been built. If the availabity of low cost power spurs
enterprises which make additional tax revenues available, enough
additional tax revenues that the dam really is a net benefit, then why
shouldn't the tax rates be lower and the power rates be higher for the
enterprises? The result would be the same in either case. If the
enterprises can afford tax costs sufficient to make the dam profitable
then they can afford power costs sufficient to make the dam
profitable. The difference being that in the latter case, the users
of the power are the ones that pay. Conservation is encouraged to
exactly the extent necessary, by reduced power costs for reduced power
consumption. And most importantly, it becomes more clear that a
private company could have built and operated the dam. Government
never had to get involved at all, except possibly to insure that the
dam is safe to those living downstream.
How would one sell if there was no one to buy? How would one
speak if there was no one to speak with? How much could one learn
if the knowledge of others was not available? How long would one
survive in Hobbes' state of war?
I don't know who you are arguing against. Not me. I like to live
among others, and to freely trade information, services, and goods
with others. I do not like to be coerced into giving up any form of
wealth against my will. That is all I am arguing against.
The decision-making organization for a community--its government--
It's not clear what you mean by community here. Lets see... "The
decision-making organization for individuals--their government--" that
doesn't seem right. Individuals make their own decisions. Perhaps it
should be "The decision-making organization for a government
--government--". No, that makes even less sense. You must have meant
the former.
Why, oh why must individuals and voluntary organizations have
decisions made for them? Has everyone been declared legally
incompetent while I wasn't looking? The way I learned it,
government's purpose is to serve individuals. Not to rule them. Not
to make decisions for them. At least not in the USA and in other free
countries.
has to be interested in the community's welfare: not just because
it can tax more,
One might as well justify slavery on the grounds that a master is
interested in his slaves' welfare so as to maximize his use of them.
Torturing them to death would be unprofitable, and a waste of valuable
goods.
but also because otherwise it would be replaced.
Ah. This is what does seperate us from the really horrible
tyrannies. If things get bad enough, we can always kick the bastards
out. And kick a new set in.
The problem is mainly a lack of education. The Libertarian party
has been doing rather poorly in elections. To some extent this is
because of the two party effect - people don't think third parties
have any chance, so they don't vote for them. It becomes a self
fulfilling prophecy.
But it is not necessary that a member of the Libertarian party be
elected. Generally, when third parties start doing fairly well, their
platform is absorbed by one or both of the two major parties. As
such, one's vote is actually much MORE effective if one votes for a
third party.
So why hasn't this happened? Why haven't there been more votes for
the Libertarians? All I can figure is that it is a matter of
ignorance on the part of many individuals. Most people learn most of
what they know about government in public schools. These schools are
owned and operated by the established government, and naturally enough
tend to (perhaps subconsciously) slant their teaching of government in
a direction that tends to perpetuate the status quo. People who do
not do a lot of independant reading, or who do not change their
opinions much after high school graduation, would naturally believe
the conventional 1930s-1980s view of the role of government. People
who get much of their information from radio and TV have the same
problem. The notorious 'fairness doctrine' says that radio and TV
stations and networks must not broadcast any political views unless
they also broadcast competing views. In practice, this means
Democrats and Republicans get equal coverage and nobody else gets any.
There is very little that human individuals create. Most of what
they do to "create" wealth is move things around. Gold, for
instance, can be moved out of the ground into someone's hands
to make that person wealthy.
Houses aren't created out of vacuum, but out of piles of brick and
lumber. Cars aren't created from nothing, but from sheet metal and
other materials. Does this mean that houses are worth no more than
piles of bricks and lumber? Does this mean that cars are worth no
more than sheet metal? Does this mean that sheet metal is worth no
more than iron ore?
Do you mean to imply that if a person were to magically build a
house out of nothing or bake delicious cookies with no ingredients,
that his time and effort is of value to himself, but that if he uses
bricks for houses and flour for cookies that it is ok for someone to
rob him of the value of his labor? Remember that he payed for the
bricks and mortar. He purchaced the flour and the sugar and the power
needed for the oven.
The price of food is quite alot higher than the farmer gets for it
because it has been moved around.
See? The value of wheat seed is less than the value of grown wheat.
The farmer had to invest his time and labor. He had to buy not only
the wheat seed but the land to grow it in. And possibly fertilizers
and water and fuel. The flour is more valuable than the wheat. The
flour maker had to pay for a lot more than the wheat to make the
flour. And the cookies are more valuable than the flour and the
butter and the sugar and whatever other ingredients went into it.
There are shipping costs, power for cooking, time and effort for doing
all this, for organizing it, for shopping for the cheapest
ingredients, for marketing the cookies, etc, etc. If each party to
the transition were not taxed a high rate for each purchase and each
sale from seed grain to baked goods, the final cost would be much
less. But the cost of the cookies would still be much greater than
the cost of the seeds or the wheat. Has anything been created? You
are correct that no matter has been created. Has no wealth been
created?
When a master artist puts paint on canvas he might be creating a
great work of art. It might be worth millions. But he didn't create
the paint. He didn't create the canvas. Did he create anything?
When a house burns down no matter is literally destroyed. It is
merely rearranged a bit. Has nothing been destroyed? When people are
killed, no matter is destroyed. Just moved around. Has nothing been
destroyed?
The few material things that I can think of which humans create
are their own flesh and blood, and their children. (And from a
microscopic view, these also are just moving things around,
rearranging them.) Would you have parents own their children--
forever?
A human being cannot own a human being (except himself) and a
government cannot own a human being. This is because every person has
certain inalienable rights. The very rights you seem eager to throw
away.
If you prefer to reject all the current benefits you are receiving
from your environment, go live on a deserted isle or ship.
As I said, I prefer to live among people, to freely and voluntarily
trade with them, and to voluntarily donate my wealth to whoever and
whatever I choose.
I would prefer living on a deserted isle to living among robbers.
You happen to live in one of those few communities which might let
its enormous investment in you go
What investment? You might say that my parents have made an
investment in me, but who else? Do you mean public education? I am
mostly self-educated. And even if I wasn't, I never agreed to accept
any debt for my education. Nobody has any obligation to live up to
the terms of any transaction not voluntarily agreed to.
What community? By community, I assume you mean government. I wish
you would use the word government if that is what you mean.
Public education is payed for mostly by local taxes. If you believe
that the local 'community' is investing in a person and expects to get
its investment back with interest, does this mean you oppose the
freedom to move to another city? Does one have to work off one's debt
to the city one was educated in first?
This is one of the main rationales that the communist countries use
to justify restrictions on the movement of its citizens. Do you then
agree with them that people educated in communist countries should not
be permitted to leave? Or that they are 'lucky' if they are allowed
to leave?
(the modern rationale for considering suicide illegal is this
investment and the damage the suicide will have on the community's
other investments).
No. The reasons are the traditional religious reason, the fact that
relatives and friends of the deceased will (usually) be very upset,
the fact that the vast majority of people who were forcibly prevented
from comitting suicide were later very thankful for the intervention,
and the idea that suicide is so obviously against one's best interests
that attempting suicide is considered strong evidence that the person
is not in his right mind, and thus not currently capable of freely
rationally choosing suicide.
Not that I support any of these reasons, though the last two are
pretty persuasive. I would let someone kill themselves if they
remained determined to do so over a period of several weeks,
especially if they had what appeared to be a rational reason, such as
a life sentence without parole, or a very painful fatal disease.
...Keith
-------