mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/03/86)
Melissa Silvestre writes: >We [the libedrtarians] are far more radical than that! We don't wish to >"meet the needs of society". We wish to redefine how those needs are judged >so that it's economically impossible NOT to meet those needs. Since the real meanings of words cannot be defined out of existence, nor the real names of things be defined out of existence, I can only read this to mean that the libertarians would prefer anything, even the disintegration of society, to the acceptance of any social obligations attached to wealth. >Of course, such redefinitions are based on a completely different idea >of what it means to be a responsible adult than proponents of the >current paternalistic system have. And at this point, this discussion >should probably move to talk.politics.theory. No, let's stay in reality for a moment. There is a very deep problem with this sort of attitude; it is that it is simultaneously a free and a totalitarian doctrine, and therefore virtually guarantees revolution. It's freedom is well-espoused. It's totalitarian aspect, however, derives from the fact that demands certain ways of thinking, at the expense of any dissent. It therefore is an ideological solution and not a political solution. Marxism is essentially the economic argument against this sort of government; a libertarian government would be therefore uniquely vulnerable to Marxism, especially since the government would have to refuse to project the workers against the wealthy. >> I repeat my view: 'libertarian' is a euphemism for 'self-centered, self- >> satisfied, self-serving, inconsiderate, greedy lout." >Libertarian is a maltheism for "a responsible adult who wishes to make >others responsible adults as well." THat is precisely the problem. Why economic responsibility should be any easier to attain than political responsibility is a question which is not answered-- it cannot be answered, because the historical record is firmly against it. One can draw an analogy between homeopathic medicine and laissez-faire economics. There is a lot of nice theory behind both. Both can point to cases where the explanations hold. But even the people I know who use homeopathic remedies know when to consult a doctor; yet the libertarians canoot make the embarrassing boils of exploitation go away. Perhaps they would go away in time; but what populace is willing to wait to find out? C. Wingate
nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/10/86)
>/* Written 9:53 pm Oct 2, 1986 by mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */ >/* ---------- "More Economic Heresy" ---------- */ >Melissa Silvestre writes: > >>We [the libedrtarians] are far more radical than that! We don't wish to >>"meet the needs of society". We wish to redefine how those needs are judged >>so that it's economically impossible NOT to meet those needs. > >Since the real meanings of words cannot be defined out of existence, nor the >real names of things be defined out of existence, I can only read this to >mean that the libertarians would prefer anything, even the disintegration of >society, to the acceptance of any social obligations attached to wealth. If so, you need remedial reading as well as economics! Read it again: Melissa (at least where you quote her) proposes redefinition, but not of words but rather of processes. It's a loose but (by me) acceptable use of the word redefine. Melissa isn't (at least here) saying "'Poor' shall henceforth mean... " but rather that the method of judging needs should be changed. To leap from this to your statement is incredible: even if Melissa were proposing that we all discuss the problem in Mandarin from now on, she would not have suggested that she'd prefer the disintegration of society to anything in particular. >>Of course, such redefinitions are based on a completely different idea >>of what it means to be a responsible adult than proponents of the >>current paternalistic system have. And at this point, this discussion >>should probably move to talk.politics.theory. > >No, let's stay in reality for a moment. Umm.... "talk.politics.misc" does not constitute reality. (Perhaps remedial "reality recognition" should be added to your list of new studies?) >There is a very deep problem with >this sort of attitude; it is that it is simultaneously a free and a >totalitarian doctrine, and therefore virtually guarantees revolution. >It's freedom is well-espoused. Perhaps: Let's hear the justification for the "totalitarian" part: >It's totalitarian aspect, however, derives from >the fact that demands certain ways of thinking, at the expense of any >dissent. So where has Melissa demanded this? So far as I can tell, she has sought to persuade, rather than control. Check in to a vocabulary course, kid: to-tal-i-tar-i-an ... 1. designating, of, or characteristic of a government or state in which one political party or group maintains complete control under a dictatorship and bans all others 2. completely authoritarian, autocratic, dictatorial, etc --n a person who favors such a government or state. Demanding certain ways of thinking at the expense of any dissent is rather a loose definition. Is a math teacher totalitarian when he tells you that 2+2=4? How about when he marks a paper wrong when you say that 2+2 != 4? He would be totalitarian if he were to somehow ban thinking about non-euclidean geometry, but it is hardly totalitarian to eschew error and to point it out in others. Ah, I hear you say: but what if the "error" is NOT an error. In that case I say what I hope the Math teacher would say: show me! I suspect Melissa would say as much too, but let her speak for herself. >It therefore is an ideological solution and not a political >solution. Marxism is essentially the economic argument against this sort of >government; a libertarian government would be therefore uniquely vulnerable >to Marxism, especially since the government would have to refuse to project >the workers against the wealthy. Marxism an economic argument against totalitarianism? I think not: but you may well wish to forget Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Oh, and if you're thinking that the purely economic aspect of Marxism is a good argument against a libertarian society, forget it: Marx didn't allow for progress. As I understand the argument (which is *not* my invention) Marx's shrinking capitalist class scenario is based on incorrect static assumptions: that worker output remain the same, that old mechanisms of production are not overturned by new ones, that monopoly of industrial production would constitute a monopoly on new production. >>> I repeat my view: 'libertarian' is a euphemism for 'self-centered, self- >>> satisfied, self-serving, inconsiderate, greedy lout." > >>Libertarian is a maltheism for "a responsible adult who wishes to make >>others responsible adults as well." > >THat is precisely the problem. Why economic responsibility should be any >easier to attain than political responsibility is a question which is not >answered-- it cannot be answered, because the historical record is firmly >against it. Exactly: the neglected (by you) "flip-side" of this is that governments are LESS likely to be responsible than individuals: the governments are not as closely attached to the consequences of bad decisions. >One can draw an analogy between homeopathic medicine and laissez-faire >economics. There is a lot of nice theory behind both. Both can point to >cases where the explanations hold. But even the people I know who use >homeopathic remedies know when to consult a doctor; yet the libertarians >canoot make the embarrassing boils of exploitation go away. Perhaps they >would go away in time; but what populace is willing to wait to find out? I get it: because the populace wishes to plunder it should be allowed to do so? I am, of course, always keen to hear about these exploitations. Months ago I posted repeated requests for the names of "Company Towns", since they were the hot topic among anti-capitalists then. No answer... Of course, without such boils to actually point to, your position is greatly weakened. If they're all as firm as the straw men (neo-classical economics predicting the job market would clear!) you've already filed, they'll be great fun to explode, so I suggest you research them a little before posting. (I'm *REALLY* hoping Wingate posts "Love Canal").
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (10/14/86)
In article <3660@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: > [...] There is a very deep problem with this sort of [libertarian] > attitude; it is that it is simultaneously a free and a > totalitarian doctrine, and therefore virtually guarantees revolution. It's > freedom is well-espoused. It's totalitarian aspect, however, derives from > the fact that demands certain ways of thinking, at the expense of any > dissent. It therefore is an ideological solution and not a political > solution. Marxism is essentially the economic argument against this sort of > government; a libertarian government would be therefore uniquely vulnerable > to Marxism, especially since the government would have to refuse to project > the workers against the wealthy. I think not, and believe that a libertarian society would be much less prone to revolution and more tolerant of social and economic experimentation. I think Mr. Wingate fails to apprehend what FREEDOM really means: under a libertarian system, people would be perfectly free to set up socialist subeconomies by mutual consent and if done without coercion. Workers unsatisfied with their employers could freely organize, strike, organize boycotts, or raise capital and buy out their employer and run the business as a cooperative, collective, or under whatever bizarre profit-sharing method they may devise by way of contract. A libertarian economy is best viewed as a pluralistic system; in the macro sense it is inherently free-market capitalism, but in a micro sense it can be whatever its members decide to cook up and agree to. Michael C. Berch ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb