mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (09/09/86)
In article <897@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Thomas J Keller) writes: > . . . > I contend that if one is committing one's time to providing you with a > service that you feel you need, than you **** O W E **** that individual > sufficent recompense that they can afford to pay for acceptable shelter, > food and clothing. To suggest that any person who is devoting themselves > 8 (or more) hours per day to meeting **YOUR** needs doesn't deserve a > living wage (and in the current economy, minimum wage most certainly is > **NOT** a living wage) is tantamount to feudalism. Ah, I see the social-democrats are trying to repeal the laws of the marketplace again (*sigh*). I wonder -- just where is this "sufficient recompense" going to COME from? (The government, I assume; either by direct taxation, or by debasing the currency by printing up dollars to spend on "social programs.") Mr. Keller, whether I believe a worker at McD's "deserves" a living wage is irrelevant. I am willing to pay a certain amount for my cheeseburger, and if it rises above a certain amount, I am going to look elsewhere. I fail to see how I "owe" anything other than the $1.69 that my burger costs. If you wish to augment the earnings of poor persons by charitable means, by all means do so, but please refrain from confiscating the earnings of others in order to so do. > [...] 'Libertarians' can't seem to get the notion that the > cost of living today is ***MUCH*** higher than it was many years ago. My > mother worked as an accounting clerk for a furniture store for $.25/hr > when she was 18. Sorry, you're wrong. The actual dollar COL is obviously higher due to inflation, but if you adjust to constant dollars, practically everything takes less purchasing power as expressed by hours of labor. This has many dependent and independent causes, including technology-driven productivity increases, more efficient production of goods (making them cheaper in real terms), and others. If the tax burden had not increased dramatically in real terms over these years, the difference in standard of living would be stupendous. The work-week has shrunk to an all-time low, and leisure time and leisure-based expenditures are at an all-time high. > Now, 'libertarians' keep touting this B.S. concept of the "free market", > when people complain about excessive profits or unacceptable practices on > the part of owners/bosses. Yet, when the **LABOR FORCE** attempts to invoke > the "free market" principal to indicate that non-living wage jobs are not > acceptable, all of a sudden they are "lazy, unreasonable, greedy". Hmmm... Nope. There's nothing wrong with organizing labor, strikes, whatever, except when unions attempt to invoke the coercive power of the state to help achieve their demands. I refer to laws permitting closed-shop and agency-shop conditions, "anti-scab" laws, and strikes that are in violation of employment contracts that are occasionally protected. > Wrong! The situation is *NOT* related to the "state". It is **SOCIETY** > which has created over-population, automation, and the many other factors > which result in high unemployment. This being the case, ***SOCIETY*** > most certainly *DOES* owe a basic living to each member. After all, not > ***ONE*** of us had any choice in becoming a member of society. We didn't > choose to be born, or even when and where to be born. You've translated definitions here for your own benefit. If it is "society" that has caused all these horrible evils, and "society" that owes a basic living to each member, what embodiment of "society" is going to provide this basic living? The government, of course! -- THE STATE! > SUppose you do a bit of thinking, for just a moment. Let's not forget > that such a couple, working in a minimum wage environment, who had young > children, would have **MANY** expenses. Childcare for one. IN essence, > one member of the couple would be working full time to pay for the child > care so that the other member of the couple would be free to earn not > enough to live on. Hmmm. Minimum wage * 2 is about $13,000/yr. Assume 1 or 2 small children (having more than that is simply irresponsible, given their inability to provide for them). Let's deduct rent for a 2-br apartment in an inexpensive area ($400/mo.), food ($300/mo.), clothing and personal supplies ($150/mo.). Child care can be arranged cooperatively through non-governmental community, church, and neighborhood groups for nominal fees. That leaves about $3,000/yr. for utilities, transportation, non-employer-paid medical expenses, sales and local taxes, and all miscellaneous expenses and entertainment. There would be no federal/state income tax at this level. That's not a good situation, but none of the four of them should go to bed hungry or freeze in the winter. Michael C. Berch ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (09/10/86)
-- > Mr. Keller, whether I believe a worker at McD's "deserves" a living > wage is irrelevant. I am willing to pay a certain amount for my > cheeseburger, and if it rises above a certain amount, I am going to > look elsewhere. I fail to see how I "owe" anything other than the > $1.69 that my burger costs. If you wish to augment the earnings of > poor persons by charitable means, by all means do so, but please > refrain from confiscating the earnings of others in order to so do... > > Michael C. Berch Ahh!!! You've gotten to the heart of the matter. The question is, "Do you have obligations to people you don't even know?" and if so, "Is it a proper function of society to deal with those obligations?" By most ethical philosophies, the answers "no" and "no"--which I suspect most libertarians would give--are repugnant. The proper argument against such libertarianism is not against its logic, which is sound, but against its morals, which are bankrupt. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 10 Sep 86 [24 Fructidor An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/12/86)
>/* Written 1:23 am Sep 2, 1986 by mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP in inmet:net.politics */ >>>It seems to me inevitable that poor uneducated people currently >>>on welfare or unemployment would see a severe drop in their >>>standard of living in a libertarian society. > >>Oh? What about the people who could find work as taxi drivers but >>cannot due to licensure? Or as barbers? Or how about the folks whose >>net economic worth is less than minimum wage (and who therefore it is >>artificially unprofitable to hire)? What about people who could make >>money running gambling houses (at first, just a place for one poker >>game, but later...)? > >In DC, on the contrary, we are cursed with an overabundance of taxi drivers, >a great many of whom are immigrants. THe limits isn't set by licensing; >it's set by the overload of cabs we have already. Even when the stupid zone >system is taken into account, the economics of the situation produces >terrible taxi service. Oh woe! Burdened by this abundance, you must struggle along somehow! It seems to me that to solve your problem, any of several measures would suffice: Make it very, very expensive to get a taxi license ($100,000 in New York these days) Require college diplomas, or perhaps advanced degrees, before allowing taxi drivers (Why fool around?) Require taxi drivers to be rich! Poor Wingate -- a real shame he must mix with those "immigrants", eh? > >People who are making less than minimum wage don't have enough to servive >around here without subsidized housing and food stamps. And so, lacking those, they would move somewhere else, so prices would go up in Washington, so people who insist on living there would bear the true costs of living there, and people in (say) Cleveland, Ohio, would not have to subsidize them. Is this so horribly unfair? >Lowering the >minimum wage may indeed produce more jobs AND much lower prices, but it's >also possible that it may produce a severe contraction in the economy when >the formerly excess wages get plowed into profits-- or even expansion. >Unless there's a commensurate drop in prices, there will much less money for >durables as people plow more of their income into simply subsisting. >Playing these economic games is very tricky, because it's never clear >whether the psychology of the situation is going to cooperate with theory. Sorry - but you have disqualified yourself from playing such games: >/* Written 12:55 am Sep 3, 1986 by mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP in inmet:net.politics */ >Libertarian government would allow the same sorts of >abuses, because it views rents as purely economic things, relying upon >economics to eradicate them. I have little or no faith in economic theory, >so I do not expect the market to suppress the oppression. Perhaps you feel that this statement frees you from having to support assertions about economic likelihood, but it does not. By the way, it seems to me that less money for durables would be matched by a lowering of the cost of making those durables. >>As for the point that one should either be willing >>to contribute as much to charity as one contributes to welfare or >>one is proposing to make the poor die ("people currently *dependent* >>on the government" would die if nothing replaced the government, right?) >>it dismisses, without saying so explicitly, any possibility that >>the government is not good at charity, and that other things >>(such as opportunity) would not remain the same in a libertarian society >>as they are now. > >Really, now, we are sopposed to be more intelligent than this. THe >government is seemingly not very good at charity. But it is very good at >collecting the money. Why is it so unreasonable, then, to parcel out the >distribution function to a private concern? Do not confuse ends with means; >in this case, once it is agreed that moral intent of charity is good as an >end, the present question becomes not whether to do away with welfare, but >rather what can be done to make it function more effectively. Yes, let's avoid confusion by all means: you may begin by avoiding the equation of "charity" with "forced charity". Your statment amounts to "once charity is agreed upon, it is moral to force people to pay". The ends justify the means, eh, Wingate? >Libertarian >and Objectivist arguments don't even attempt to explore this possibility. You haven't been paying attention: ... But they claim that the market is "undemocratic" because the number of "votes" -- that is, the number of dollars available to be spent -- varies widely from person to person. Therefore, they argue that the government should intervene in the market to redistribute wealth and income. This argument correctly regards the free market as having its own internal logic, producing results, such as an unequal distribution of income independent of the desires of its supporters. It incorrectly treats the political process as if it had no corresponding internal logic of its own. The argument simply assumes that political institutions can be set up to produce any desired outcome. ... One cannot simply say "Let government help the poor." "Reform the income tax so that rich people really pay." Things are as they are for reasons. It would make as much sense for the defender of the free market to argue that when he sets up *his* free market it will produce equal wages for everyone. "The Machinery of Freedom" David Friedman Chapt 4 -- Robin Hood Sells Out. Since I've cited this book quite often, I think you (once again) owe libertarians an apology. The notion that government COULD be used to redistribute wealth has been considered -- but it has the flaw that the wealth will flow according to political, not humane, considerations. >>In fact, governments are about 1/2 as efficient as private enterprise in >>most things (cf, Friedman, David, "The Machinery of Freedom") and someone >>posted on the net some time ago statistics indicating the government >>is MONUMENTALLY bad at charity. (The claim was that to give >>one dollar to a person via one's church typically cost $1.03, to give >>it via United Way cost $1.15, and to give it via the federal government >>cost $5.00). > >I haven't read these articles, but I suspect a bit of creative accounting by >the authors. In any case, one could take their results to indicate that the >obvious solution is to have the government simply give the money it collects >directly to the charities using some cheap distributive function. That's nice. I'm sure that's what the government would say it is doing now, with a few exceptions that our elected representatives mandate, of course! Think not? Try it -- call a government agency and ASK why things aren't done privately. >It simply >isn't a valid argument against anything except the current set-up in HHS. As Friedman says, things are as they are for a reason. To put your faith in government, but ignore the governmental dynamic, is the height of danger. >THere's nothing, as far as I know, that wouldn't prevent the current HHS >from being taken apart and being reassembled in some radically different and >hopefully much more efficient way-- after all, it isn't as though we've made >attempt at all to figure out what the best way to do this is. In which case, all you have to do is prove me wrong -- and you can do this by causing the HHS to be re-assembled in some radically different and hopefully much more efficient way. (What? You can't do it? But you just said "nothing [...] prevents...") Perhaps, instead of "nothing, as far as I know", you should have said "nothing I'm willing to think about". >>"Tish-tosh", you would say, "If charities were handling it now, then >>clearly votes would be forthcoming!". Just so: since votes are >>presently forthcoming, so also would charity be forthcoming. The >>impulse to charity takes the easiest road. In *our* society, the >>easiest road is to vote other people's money for the purpose. In a >>free society, denied this option, you shame, cajole, persuade, and >>appeal to the higher instincts of, other free people. > >If people could be relied upon to act out their moral sentiments, then a >fully free system might work. But they cannot be relied upon; they are >quite willing to shirk the obligations which they make. Oh? That naturally includes paying taxes, right? It also includes voting to steal money from the middle class using the state as the thief (thus shirking the (to me, important) obligation to leave their fellows in peace), right? >Charity, as it >exists now, is dependent upon various coercions and pressures. We have >taxes; we have payroll deductions for the United Way. We have pledges at >church with various forms of social pressure to back it up. We buy it from >the rich in exchange for lauding their supposed generosity, and in return >they hold it for ransom, and try to embarrass them if they renege. All of >these entail some mechanism for trying to coerce people into honoring their >commitments; taxes happen to be a particularly effective technique. And except for taxes, all would exist in a free society. >>> What about those unemployed because there just aren't enough jobs >>> (that they are qualified for)? > >>Then they learn new jobs -- starting, if necessary, at the bottom. >>Sheesh! Shall we repeal the law of Adam ("by the sweat of thy brow...") >>along with the others? > >And when no such jobs appear? Sorry -- you have no faith in economic theory, so you'll just have to look at the incredible unemployment in Hong Kong and Singapore to prove me wrong, right? >The problem is that this politics depends >upon the assurance that the economy will stabilize itself into "full" >employment if left alone (full in this case meaning that the only unemployed >would be those changing jobs and those who "deserved" it). THere simply is >no economic assurance of this, and historically we have often had periods >where the economy had settled into a state of significant high unemployment. Right -- Smoot-Hawley was a good one! The Great Depression (following a massive governmental in the money supply) is another. Both delightful products of state meddling. Since you've no faith in economic theory, there's no reason for me to try to convince *you* that a free society means very low unemployment (frictional only, as Daniel Mck. pointed out). You'll just have to take my word for it... For everyone else, try hiring someone long-term. Just ask what it takes, and what costs are government-mandated. Then tell us how easy it is for a small firm to hire someone. This doesn't mean that a free society means full employment, but it's an easily done test to show that our current morass means that lots of people will be unwilling to hire anybody, even though they'd like to.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/12/86)
>/* Written 1:33 am Sep 7, 1986 by mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP in inmet:net.politics */ >>You [Charles] owe the libertarians on the net two apologies -- one for each >>clause of your last sentence. > >THis demanding of apologies for the statement of conclusions and opinions >has to stop. I do not demand apologies of libertarians, no matter how often >they offend me. Simple disagreement simply is not cause. Have you been taking straw man lessons from Sevener? "Simple disagreement" is one thing -- the misrepresentation of libertarian views is quite another. If we disagreed as to the likely outcome of repeal of rent control, that would be a "simple disagreement". If you and I disagree about what libertarians think or say, it's a little less symmetrical: I *am* a libertarian, hence more qualified to speak, at least for one libertarian. When I can furnish references to show your representation of our beliefs to be incorrect, your position is rather untenable, and I think an apology would be a simple act of grace on your part. Certainly if I were to say "Charles Wingate and those like him believe in raping babies", I would apologize to you, especially if you could show me the "Charles Wingate Reader" included specific injunctions against baby-raping. >> 1. Libertarians do not "bless" whatever distribution of wealth >> there happens to be. As discussions between myself and >> Richard Carnes have illustrated, we "bless" only those >> distributions NOT brought on by initiation of force or fraud. >> And we bless those only to the extent of saying that those are >> legitimate, not that they are holy. You have certainly seen >> such statements (for example, 6-8 months ago (or so) Richard >> gave the example of the slimy robber baron, asking if >> his fortune was legitimate, and I pointed out >> that his property claim was legitimate in the same sense that >> RICHARD'S property claims were valid: nobody had successfully >> challenged them in court). > >Well, my use of the word bless was metaphorical, and I must say that I did >not see this argument of half a year past. > >If you are really going to take this fraud business seriously, then you are >committing yourself to all sorts of wholesale confiscation of property. >There are few really large fortunes in this country that cannot be traced >back to the robbver barons, and fraud continues apace anyway. Fine -- let the defrauded (or their heirs) show a continuous claim, and take it to court. >> 2. Go to the back of the class in the case of Robin Hood. On >> page 101 of the Berkley paperback of libertarian* science >> fiction author F. Paul Wilson's "An Enemy of the State", we >> find: > >Frankly, I cannot imagine why a Libertarian work of fiction is being cited >as a historical source. Here we have what I hope is a simple misunderstanding. You assert that libertarians are quite against "Robin Hoods", and *I* quote a libertarian work eulogizing him. It doesn't matter that the work is fiction. It could be a *poem* for heavens sake, and the point would be won. You owe us (as I see it) an apology for misrepresenting our beliefs. >> As most of you remember, [Robin Hood] was a mythical >> do-gooder on Old Earth who supposedly robbed from the >> rich and gave to the poor. But that's the sanitized, >> government-approved version of the legend. Anyone >> reading between the lines will see that Robin Hood was >> the archetypical tax rebel. He robbed from the rich, >> yes -- but those rich happened to be King John's tax >> collectors. And he gave to the poor -- but his >> beneficiaries were those who had been looted by the >> tax collectors. He merely returned their own property.** > >Let us begin with reality rather than the fictional speculations of a >fictional character. How clear do I have to make this? You said: >Libertarians certainly bless whatever >distribution of wealth there happens to be, and they certainly are against >either public or private Robin Hoods. And I point out (by example) that Robin Hood is a character *admired* by Libertarians. I point out that the legend (as popularly known) is Robin Hood against the Normans, and go so far as to cite a desk encyclopedia (not a particularly libertarian reference) as reference for that. Your assertion that libertarians don't approve of "Robin Hoods" is thus *thoroughly* discredited. I go to this trouble, not from any great enthusiasm for making you look silly, but to make sure that the point is clear in *everyone's* mind, including yours. Just to make it a little clearer: in another book, "The Tomb", F. Paul Wilson has a rather libertarian Robin-Hood type called "Repairman Jack". Jack's emphasis is more on the dispensation of vigilante justice (although the legends of Robin Hood have him doing this too). It's clear, reading the book, that we are meant to admire Jack. It probably *is* true that libertarians don't often much care for PUBLIC Robin Hoods, but they so often turn out to be agents of the Sheriff of Nottingham. >(The following info is taken from _John Hopkins >Magazine_, Feb. 1984.) There is a fair amount of evidence that there was a >real Robin Hood who was a real outlaw. The earliest tales which survive, >however, contain nothing of the "stole from the rich..." material (in fact, >in some he was *collecting* taxes). Let's have no waffling, Charles. If I were to find tomorrow that the *real* Robin Hood was an alien from Mars, it wouldn't mean that libertarians approve of *Martians*, but rather that libertarians approved of Robin Hood as he had been popularly understood. That YOU are able to find obscure precursors of the legend has no bearing on what you certainly were understood to mean when you referred to Robin Hood, any more than the revelation that RH was a Martian would change what was meant. Both revelations were unavailable to the reader (99% of the readers, anyhow) at the time of the statement, so they are NOT relevant. To bring in the precursors of the modern legend is simply to blur the issue. Just to quibble, though: unless the original was named "Robin Hood", (which I *very* much doubt could be established) your point has no standing: you refer to a character related only tenuously (for all that he may have been the cause) of the modern term "Robin Hood", whereas the legend is welded to the name. >It must also be remembered that the economic climate of 15th century (which >is when the first tales describing R.H. as a good man and an instrument of >social justice appear) is radically unlike what we have now. THis was still >in the era where land was the only real wealth, and where land and the right >to govern were still synonymous (and indeed, the later persisted in this >country for years). THere was precious little distinction between rent and >taxes. Others have adequately refuted this point. To summarize: rent implies you may leave at will (certainly not the situation) or that you've agreed upon a price with the landlord (CERTAINLY not the situation). >>Were your initial charge true, libertarians (including, in >>the generic sense, F. Paul Wilson) would approve of the tax collectors >>KEEPING the money they had collected. Not so, of course. If you >>DON'T realize this, you haven't been paying attention, and if you DO >>realize this, you owe us an apology for misrepresenting our views. > >Well, Mr. Wilson makes the historical error of implying that the landowners >and the government were distinct, which is a development which is >considerably later (essentially, when there became societies in which >merchants became a really important source of wealth). In medieval ENgland, >no such distinction existed. Mr. Wilson's historical accuracy is completely unimportant -- he is dealing in legend, a well-known popular legend, and his historical accuracy or inaccuracy on this point is quite tangent to the notion of whether libertarians approve of "Robin Hoods". You're squirming, and you shouldn't. Why not concede the point? >>In any case, you CERTAINLY owe us an apology w.r.t. Robin Hood -- >>He was one of my childhood heroes, and your claim that we don't >>approve of those like him is clearly wrong -- a question of fact. > >Robin Hood was merely intended as a symbol of redistribution in the interest >of social justice. To the extent that I was obviously too obscure, I >apologize. Well thank you! >>Now on this matter of the apologies, I don't ask this to make you >>squirm, or to shame you, but merely because I believe you've >>willfully misrepresented our views (perhaps in a burst of zeal) and >>think you owe it to us to set the record straight. > >Well, this disagreement seems to be centered around the notions of >legitimate ownership and redistribution. Wrong, wrong, wrong! You made two false statements about libertarianism. You have apologized for being "obscure" on the matter of Robin Hood, but you have not yet set the record straight on the matter of "blessing" whatever property setup happens to exist. >We've been around the ownership >question enough times to where I think the views on both sides are well >known. Maybe, but not to you! Not until you admit (perhaps only to yourself?) that libertarians do NOT bless the current property setup. >I still am not convinced that there is not a discrepancy between >libertarian notions of legitimate ownership and the current distribution of >wealth-- and it must be remembered that even if a Libertarian government >were seated in Congress next week, there would still the current social >situation to contend with. Bah! Examples of libertarian disagreements with the current structure abound! Want some? From "Libertarian Party Position Paper #1": We equally oppose those welfare programs which enhance the power and wealth of a privileged minority at the expense of the poor and middle classes -- the subsidies to Lockheed, Penn Central, Pan Am, and other big businesses existing in cosy relationships with government power. Other examples: David Friedman suggests selling off the rights to the EM spectrum. The LP platform, at least at one point, suggests selling off federal lands to pay for the social-security boondoggle. >I also do not apologize to people who do not give their names out. Too late! You already apologized above, to the extent you were "obscure". I also asked for an apology to libertarians IN GENERAL, not me specifically. However, no mystery: my full name is Nathaniel Richardson Howard, III. You now have one less excuse. (Why do you suppose both Wingate and Sevener have taken me to task on this question of my name? Coincidence? Very likely).
nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/12/86)
>/* Written 2:50 am Sep 7, 1986 by mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP in inmet:net.politics */ >[When is inmet going to fix its "references" line bug?] > >>>Assuming there were jobs to be had. THe economy is quite able to function >>>at perfectly awful levels of unemployment; unemployment is therefore purely >>>a social issue, and one which libertarians can only hope will magically >>>resolve itself. > >>If you keep a bunch of people in jail, and then open the doors, is it >>"magic" that makes them leave? How about if you keep a bunch of >>people in chains? Economic chains? If you let them go, is it too >>much to hope that they can make lives for themselves? > >But the analogy is incorrect, because the analogy to the above passage is >that there were jobs which people were *prevented* from taking. That's not >what we have, however. The problem supposedly is that people refuse to take >jobs which presumably being offered to them. Oh? Try and get a job as a plumber in New York: you need to be a member of the craft union, and it's *very* hard to get in. Ditto for electricians and carpenters, taxi drivers ($100,000 medallions in NYC). Some of this stuff is quite unskilled, but you don't get to do it unless you have the contacts. >>Of course not. And yet we hear things like the above -- the notion >>that unemployment would remain solid in the face of otherwise stable, >>free, conditions, that people who are artificially prevented from >>working (those whose economic output is below the minimum wage) will >>not find employment if we get rid of the minimum wage, the income tax, >>and licensure, and that to think otherwise is to depend upon "magic". > >Well, it IS magic. It depends upon faith in the workings of a supposed >science whose appelation of "dismal" should not be applied to its outlook, >but rather to its record. Hmm... I suspect you haven't studied much economics. It's record is very solid with respect to predicting shortages when prices are artificially controlled (low), and lack of demand (gluts) when prices are pegged (artificially) too high. Certainly it is not a predictive science, but certain principles are extremely well founded, and you'd do well to pay attention to them (despite your earlier claim to a lack of faith in economics). If you examine that record (that of price fixing) you'll find, I think, that economic predictions related to market clearing in the case of artificial price controls are quite solid, if qualitative. >That the job market will clear when free of >restrictions is an assumption of economics, because the equations cannot be >worked otherwise; but the job market never clears, and the reasons for this >are hotly disputed. Huh? "the equations cannot be worked otherwise"??? Which equations are those? When Daniel Mck. allows that there would still be frictional unemployment in a free society, he didn't use the word "zero". >Given the state of economic understanding, and >considering the past performance of the economy, I cannot understand how any >conclusion at all can be justified. Quite so -- therefore we do not dare meddle, correct? We should STOP meddling -- because we might make some aspect of things infinitely worse than it would be without government interference, and given this lack of understanding, NO assertion may be made to justify ANY government intervention. >>Let me introduce one sobering fact to Charles: before minimum wage >>laws, teenage unemployment was essentially the same for black and >>white teenagers. Nowadays, it runs about 16% for white teenagers and >>about 38% for minority teenagers. > >Post hoc reasoning. This covers the same time frame as the tremendous >migration of blacks from the deep south into the north. In a period of such >radical social changes, particularly with respect to racial attitudes, there >are plenty of causes to hang this discrepancy on. Quite so -- let me support it a little more: you are a prejudiced employer. You have two possibilities for filling a position. One person is black, and willing to work for $1.00/hour. The other is white, and willing to work for $3.00/hour. Which do you hire, assuming that your greed is sufficient to make these two folks equally attractive choices at those prices? Answer: you toss a coin, and half the time the black guy wins. Now the government steps in, and, for their own good, requires employees to accept no less than $3/hour. Now the two prospects are NOT equally prejudiced: you no longer need to flip the coin -- you choose the white worker, because your greed no longer acts to counter your prejudice. Is this testable? In broad, certainly. If, as Charles suggests, the migration of blacks to the North was responsible, we would see no particular change in black unemployment in the south, right? After all, this migration would lower the number of black people, but wouldn't lower the number employed, especially as welfare benefits were (as I recall) higher in the North, and so tended to draw off the unemployed blacks. So, Charles, prove me wrong: show that black teenage unemployment went down or remained about the same as white teenage unemployment in the South, or show me the flaw in the logic. >>The unemployment of these people is, of course, only one aspect of the >>problem of unemployment, but one that may be laid solidly at the >>doorstep of the state. I find it particularly enlightening that >>this particular "progressive innovation" has been used in some places >>(such as South Africa) deliberately to exclude blacks. Where do YOU >>stand on minimum wage, Mr. Wingate, and why? > >My position is that the minimum wage exists to prevent employers from paying >people less than they can live upon. Therefore the economic goal should be >to arrange things so that this is no higher than the wage rates which clear >the labor market. > Why would anyone take a job that was less than they could live upon? It would mean certain death! Far better to become a thief! > >>Having rejected the notion that people might behave reasonably, that is, >>they would try and find jobs, and failing that appeal for help to those >>who can (legitimately) contribute to them, you then create a sort >>of "struggle of class against class" notion that appears to be based >>on the idea of a welfare cutoff tomorrow. > >You simply cannot claim that the current system is irrational and then >complain with a straight face that others are denying rationality. In point >of fact, irrational concerns are exceedingly important in economics. Perhaps another simple misunderstanding: I do not claim that the current system is irrational: I claim that it is wrong in the sense that it has been sold on the basis of incorrect arguments, and that it serves, not the people it is supposed to serve, but rather the politically astute. >>I don't propose to cut off welfare tomorrow. I propose to do it gradually. > >What makes you think that a gradual dispair is going to be any less deep >than an instant dispair? No -- I think giving people a chance to adjust to a major change is preferable to slamming it down on them all at once. If I were to pump, in one second, all the air into your lungs that you were going to inhale that day, you would die. If I simply stand aside and let you breathe it, you prosper. >>Consider for just a moment what you're saying! If your contention is >>that people who haven't held jobs can't understand what jobs are, and >>how to keep hold of them, perhaps you should consider to what extent >>this is true of people on welfare. THEY aren't holding jobs. They aren't >>building skills. In fact, if you think about it, both groups of people >>can be robbed by the criminals, but those learning something >>are working their way out of a bad situation. Those on welfare are >>not. > >THe fact remains (and it appears to be a fact) that there is a whole >subculture out there which knows nothing whatsoever of a work ethic. A >large part of the unemployment problem in urban areas is simply to get these >people to understand what employers demand, and then convince them that >fulfilling those demands is worth it to them. So? Do you understand WHY it wouldn't be worth it to them now, when minimum wage is less attractive than welfare? Is it so tough to catch on to the idea of work that you think these folks just can't do it? And if not, why should folks who CAN work subsidize this "subculture"? >>>When they find that they cannot feed themselves >>>and their children working at McDonald's, then what? Do we really need this >>>sort of underclass? > >>You have some basis for thinking that your projections (which seem to >>me to rest on static assumptions for example: that people in low-level >>entry positions don't regularly move up, and therefore that those >>workers receive no long-term benefit from working (since they are >>victimized)). > >Well, they all can't move up; there are (or should be, anyway) many more >workers than managers. And typically, the lowest paying jobs don't hold >much promise of advancement. No, they don't. But once again, you've got the "there are only so many jobs" idea in front of you. How many fast-food jobs were there in (say) 1960? How many in 1986? It seems to me that I remember the formation of Arthur Treachers's, Arbees, and a few other large chains (as well, to be sure, as the death of Royal Castle). The lowest paying jobs are platforms. From there you can jump to school, to higher seniority jobs within the joint, to manager of another franchise, to meeting someone who offers you a completely different job because he's impressed. >>As (I think it was) Tim Sevener has remarked, socialists make overly-static >>assumptions sometimes. Not to call you a socialist - I think the error holds >>true for statists of all stripes. > >Well, things start out where they are now, so first you have to explain how >economic forces are going to put things to right. No -- I don't claim that economic forces will simply "put things to right". I merely argue that the outcome will be acceptable, and ultimately superior to what we have now. I would offer, as exhibit A, the massive deregulation of England coincident with the start of the Industrial revolution. (Detractors will note that France, heir to the same technology, had nothing like the economic performance of England. Those wishing details are referred to Bastiat). >Secondly, you have >explain why they will stay there. But Charles! You've already disavowed any faith of economics as a predictive science, so there's no basis for making economic predictions! >The evidence of the past is that the >economy isn't necessarily driven away from states of economic distress, and >furthermore, that it seems to have regular tendencies to head towards such >states. Yes -- but under thoroughgoing governments as well. Remember "Stagflation"? That it could happen at all put an enormous hole in Keynesian economics. >So any politico-economic theory has to first deal with the present >situation. Okay, but in what sense? My proposal is that we start deregulating things that CLEARLY need not be regulated. For example, let's sell off free and clear rights to the EM spectrum in our neighborhood; let's allow airlines to buy and sell landing slots to each other; let's get rid of all tariffs (over a 5 year period) and do the same with farm price supports (over, say, a 10 year period). >>Another assumption in your model is that the "criminal class" members >>find themselves with no better options than remaining criminals, that is, >>that society finds no accommodation for the increase in employable >>people. Nonsense -- unless, of course, the state gets in the way again >>by doing something like artificially requiring unions. As Daniel >>Mac Kiernan (hope I've got that spelling right) remarked, there's >>no reason to think there'd be anything but frictional unemployment >>in a really free society. > >Well, Mr. Mc K. is exceedingly optimistic; one could just as easily assert >the opposite, that there's no reason to expect that things would be >different. Assuming of course, that we all agree that we've never had a >"free" society. No -- he's merely extremely well informed. Let's hear the scenario for hardcore unemployment in a free society. Remember: we aren't talking about people on charity, or who CAN'T work: we're talking about people who want to work but can't find jobs. >>>Now I'm not arguing that what we have now is in any way good or desirable. > >>Sure you are -- you've argued that it's the only thing between us and >>the formation of a unique criminal class. It's an interesting criminal >>class, too, because among its members are people supposedly too infirm >>or incompetent to be employed! > >Wrong on many counts. First of all, these are objections, not assertions. You said: > Judging from the information I have, these people will *not* go out and get > jobs, not at first anyway. They will form into a criminal class, robbing > and stealing to feed themselves. THose who do go get jobs, being confused > about what work requires, will be fired in large numbers, and will be > victimized by the others. When they find that they cannot feed themselves > and their children working at McDonald's, then what? Do we really need this > sort of underclass? If you MEANT to say "I'm AFRAID of this happening, but I'm not sure", you should (I think) have been a little more clear on that point. It's certainly sounds like a pretty definite paragraph to me, unless you agree that either your information is pretty meager or your judgement not sound. (No shame in this! I certainly don't claim to be able to predict the future!). >It is my *fear* that if welfare were eliminated, there might not be a >substantial increase in employment-- not because the welfare rolls are lined >with the infirm and incompetent, but because the economy may not need to >offer them jobs. But you've already made the point that you've no faith in economic theory! So you have no sound basis for such a fear! >What would be far more desirable is to somehow convince the economy to offer >a wage to the point where people won't want to live on welfare, and to have >an economy which wants to employ every available worker. Oh, if only this could work! But it has a built-in problem. Some time ago it was suggested that perhaps people on welfare should be issued "purina people chow", that is, some sort of extremely cheap but nutritionally adequate food. The objection was the the people eating it would be artificially separated from the rest of society. This objection will be raised, even more forcefully, if welfare were set well below the minimum wage. "How DARE they offer only this PITTANCE to those on welfare!" the reformers will thunder, as they have thundered in the past! Never mind that the welfare benefits are high by world wage standards, never mind that you need do nothing but fill out forms and satisfy bureaucrats to stay on welfare -- it will sooner or later be argued that we shouldn't have welfare so far behind minimum wage. This is the sort of thing David Friedman is talking about when he points out that political systems have a hidden dynamic, just like economic ones, that prevents "real justice" from happening. >We cannot rely >upon the economy to do this on its own at this point because economics >simply isn't well enough understood. On the other hand, there's no obvious >way to legislate this into existence. So in my view the problems are >twofold: > >(1) Try to break the welfare mentality. >(2) Figure out how to get the economy to stabilize at full employment and a >living wage. What is a living wage? >... >>>Assuming that jobs are available, we need >>>to make these people want to get off the dole, while at the same time giving >>>them the support they need to learn how to work. Seeing as how this is a >>>societal cost and a societal problem, it should be paid for through taxes, >>>but there's no reason why most of the work should not be contracted out to >>>private concerns. > >>Hah! Feeding everyone is a "societal" concern. Therefore we should >>subsidize it through taxes, right? Amusing everyone is a societal >>concern (to avoid rebellion) so the state should make sure the news >>is amusing, right? > >Do you expect the air to do it for you? So-called free market capitalism >isn't the only way to run a society, after all, and while the evidence is >that that what we are doing now is better than what many others are doing, >that contains no assurance that libertarianism or some system we haven't >thought of yet is going to be better or worse. I'd be delighted if someone came up with a better strategy for feeding people -- DO let me know when you hear of one. But merely asserting that there are others avoids the question: which one do you pick, and why? And, more important, if you and a bunch of your friends pick one, why should I be bound by the choice? >>There are a large number of low-paying entry-level occupations that >>were destroyed by the introduction of minimum wage. Just to cite >>a few examples: "shop girls" in women's clothing stores used to be >>the way in which one would learn one's way around women's clothing >>retail, Grocers had delivery boys who, given pluck and determination >>would become grocers themselves. More long-term jobs requiring >>less skill but at which one could make a (not luxurious) living >>included elevator operator, personal servants of various sorts, >>and ditchdiggers. > >>These jobs were destroyed by the imposition of the minimum wage. >>If you MUST pay each man $3.00 an hour (or whatever it is now) and >>you have a choice between $25.00/hour for one man and a backhoe or >>10 ditchdiggers at an aggregate (minimum) wage of $30.00/hour, will >>you employ one man or ten? > >Well, the author obviously lives in a different state than I do. The >grocery stores around here are full of high school kids sweeping, bagging >groceries, and loading them in cars. Some of them move on to checkers and >the like. Grocery DELIVERY boys. The author points out that you have not contradicted anything the author has said. (By the way, the extreme upper-end groceries (Bildner's in Boston) have started offering delivery service). >These economic speculations can be run the other way too. It could just as >well be argued that the minimum wage helps things by guaranteeing a certain >level of demand. If I understand you correctly, it is now time to blow my top: WHAT???? Minimum wage SUPPRESSES demand, by rendering it impossible for demands for the service at LESS than minimum wage to be satisfied. The economy wouldn't hire MORE people at minimum wage then it would at sub-minimum wage, because no employer's marginal gain IMPROVES by being forced to pay more. Minimum wage guarantees that the market segment that can afford the minimum wage will have many more people trying to get that job, but it does NOT guarantee a certain level of demand for the job! (If it COULD guarantee such a thing, we could all become wealthy beyond dreams by setting minimum wage to (say) $1,000,000,000/hour.) >And the backhoe/ditchdigger argument neglects the >situations where the number of employees is based on the task rather than >the money. If you have a situation where you have to have 5 ditchdiggers, >you aren't going to employ more merely because they are cheaper; instead, >you are going to absorb the difference for your pocket. Nope: in a situation in which you "have to have" 5 ditchdiggers, you will pay your life savings, and go deeply into hock in order to pay them. You will offer them solid gold shovels (if they want them) and ten minute working days. The problem is that very few tasks (long term) have this "have to have 5 ditchdiggers" quality. As the price of ditchdiggers goes up (artificially or otherwise) people find ways to get around using them. That skilled unions whose members are paid much more than minimum wage are among the big pushers of minimum wage is not the result of fellow-feeling on their part. It is pure self-interest. >>You may well be willing to cut people's hair for a living -- you may >>even be good at it, but unless you have a license to do it, you *can't* >>do this legally in (I think) most states. > >Big deal. The purpose of licensing in this case is merely to assure a >minimal level of competence. Judging from the number of barbershops and the >like around here, it isn't difficult in the slightest to get a license. It's not all that tough -- but if you can't read or write you won't be able to do it. If you can't leave a child at home you won't be able to do it (at least, not in Massachusetts). There are several months of schooling required, with written exams (or so my barber tells me). As for the contention that licensure is only to ensure quality... Charles: would you like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge? >>Once again, the static assumption comes to the fore. You notice that >>one of your employees, a bright young fellow, is showing up tired for >>work. Do you ignore this? Do you fire him? Neither one. You find >>out that he's working two jobs and is educated to boot. You may well >>admire his drive and offer him a somewhat better job. (at higher >>wages). Why? Because it makes sense for you to have the best, >>brightest, most driven people you can find working for you. > >It makes sense to you, but my guess is that you do not run a fast food joint. So? Do you challenge the point? On what grounds? >And what if the only job you have to offer which is better is your own >(typical in small establishments)? Then you offer to make him a junior partner! Good heavens! Have you no imagination? A friend of mine became a grocer through just that route. >>>I think it would be very difficult in this area to feed two kids if >>>mom and dad both worked at McD's, were it not for things like subsidized >>>housing. > >>Suppose you do a bit of figuring, rather than thinking. And DON'T, for >>goodness sake, assume that the people involved will remain in exactly >>the same positions for the rest of their lives. Welfare is NOT like >>McDonalds. > >But they are in those positions NOW. My figures, based on my own situation >as a grad student, is that a single person can just barely support >themselves at minimum with essentially nothing for savings. Two people >would find it very difficult to support one kid on two minimum jobs. So you take TWO jobs and work like hell. Many did more so that their kids would have a better chance. You may have heard of this little trick. It was done by many immigrants (remember those taxi drivers you seem to dislike?) willing to make new lives for themselves and their children. >>Oh heavens! The labor shortage induced by a huge increase in disposable >>income and no place to spend it! *THAT* labor shortage! The money >>once stolen by government wouldn't be *destroyed* -- it would be saved >>(in which case it would be invested -- and jobs appear) or it would >>be spent (in which case jobs appear). > >Oh, posh. We're running at a deficit, so there would be less disposable >income. Less than what? You stop taxing folks and there is MORE disposable income. >Defense contractors and consultants to the government would have a >tremendous decrease in income, and would lay off people in droves. Agreed! >SInce >the decrease in taxes would be overcompensated by a decrease in government >spending, and since the apparent increase in income would be felt most by >the rich, who have a quite different pattern of expenditures, at least >initially there would be a decrease in demand-- venture capital takes time >to affect the economy compared to layoffs. But we're talking a MAJOR change in the way business works. Suddenly a great many nonsensical projects are unfunded, and people are able to spend money on things they want. Again, I suggest Hazlitt. The layoffs of the defense contractors and such correspond to the taxpayers "firing" people who weren't doing what the taxpayers wanted them to do. The taxpayers now have a good deal of disposable income, and there is now a ready labor pool of people. Given that we don't sell ourselves back into slavery to handle the "crisis", (which, by the way, would be a likely outcome only in the event of a SUDDEN change, which I do not advocate) the taxpayers get to re-hire those people (if they choose) to do more useful (to the taxpayers) stuff. (Me? I'd probably open up shop resolving externalities on the Friedman subscription model). >Demand for capital expenditures >indirectly demanded by the government would go away. That's right -- and the defense and road externalities aside (not to ignore them, but let's discuss them elsewhere) every penny of the tax money released could be re-spent by the taxpayer to do exactly the same thing if the taxpayer wanted. If, for example, the government was subsidizing AIDS research, and took a dollar from Joe to do it, Joe is now free to spend the dollar on AIDS research (via contribution). To the extent democracy reflects fairly our corporate desires, little would change. >The classic Keynesian >cycle of the anihilation of savings might be carried out. Perhaps things >would work out, but it seems far more likely that the classic pattern for a >depression would be carried through. A depression could happen... so? No reason to suppose the dislocation is long-lived, hence no reason to suppose the depression is long-lived. > >>If you want a lengthier exposition of this principle, I suggest >>"Economics in One Lesson", by Hazlitt. > >Keynes had a classic comment on laissez-faire capitalism. He pointed out >that at the very least the government could put old bank notes in bottles >and bury them in abandoned mines. I am also puzzled how functions become >black holes for wealth when they are attached to the government, whereas >they maintain or even increase it when practiced elsewhere. It's simple enough: people spend money in ways that please them. When the government takes money by force, it is doing so because it wishes to spend money in ways that don't please people. One of the things that pleases people is making more money. If government knew any good way to do this, they could just tell us about it -- they wouldn't have to steal it from us. This is not to say government can't make money -- governments can and sometimes do. But they needn't -- and if they don't, they can still steal our money. PEOPLE who lose money have to stop spending it. They don't cause a drain on the prosperity of other people. Governments who lose money DO constitute a drain. By the way, Keynesian economics has some pretty big holes in it: stagflation, for example, was supposedly impossible.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/14/86)
>/* Written 10:20 am Sep 10, 1986 by gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP in inmet:net.politics */ >-- >> Mr. Keller, whether I believe a worker at McD's "deserves" a living >> wage is irrelevant. I am willing to pay a certain amount for my >> cheeseburger, and if it rises above a certain amount, I am going to >> look elsewhere. I fail to see how I "owe" anything other than the >> $1.69 that my burger costs. If you wish to augment the earnings of >> poor persons by charitable means, by all means do so, but please >> refrain from confiscating the earnings of others in order to so do... >> >> Michael C. Berch > >Ahh!!! You've gotten to the heart of the matter. The question is, >"Do you have obligations to people you don't even know?" and if so, >"Is it a proper function of society to deal with those obligations?" >By most ethical philosophies, the answers "no" and "no"--which I >suspect most libertarians would give--are repugnant. The proper >argument against such libertarianism is not against its logic, which >is sound, but against its morals, which are bankrupt. Must the statists make the *SAME* mistake over and over again? Re-read what he said, please. He didn't mention "society", he merely asked that Keller not confiscate the earnings of others for his own ends. He didn't say that he didn't ever feel charitably inclined (for one may do so without feeling one "owes" the poor something as an enforceable obligation). And yet, Ken Perlow starts talking about "society" enforcing the "obligation". "Society" isn't what the statists want to enforce these obligations: they invariably opt for "government" (often blurring the sharp distinction between the two). Perlow repeats the error here. If Perlow were really advocating that "society" urge people to be charitable, he would be arguing for boycotts, for social pressure, but *NOT* for State action. From his context, I gather he *is* arguing for state action (he is responding, after all, to a note asking that confiscation be eschewed). If you *MEAN* that such "obligations" exist, and that government should enforce them, then you should refer to GOVERNMENT enforcement, not that of society. The difference is vast. Blurring of it by making the government force all good things to happen leads to an "anything not required is forbidden" situation. Just for example, the notion of "obligation" is one thing, that of "legal obligation" another. I feel no LEGAL obligation to give to the Salvation Army, but I give nonetheless. Why? Because I "wish to augment the earnings of poor persons". By the way, if government is the proper organ for such "obligations", then once I've paid my taxes, THAT'S IT! Under government (which clearly DOES act as if it had the right to enforce these "obligations) I needn't feel the slightest obligation to help the poor further, because my "obligation" has clearly been discharged, right Ken? I'm told that private charity in the Soviet Union is illegal, and now I understand why...
nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/24/86)
>/* Written 2:18 am Sep 14, 1986 by mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */ > >>>In DC, on the contrary, we are cursed with an overabundance of taxi drivers, >>>a great many of whom are immigrants. THe limits isn't set by licensing; >>>it's set by the overload of cabs we have already. Even when the stupid zone >>>system is taken into account, the economics of the situation produces >>>terrible taxi service. > >>Oh woe! Burdened by this abundance, you must struggle along somehow! >>It seems to me that to solve your problem, any of several measures >>would suffice: > >> Make it very, very expensive to get a taxi license ($100,000 in >>New York these days) >> Require college diplomas, or perhaps advanced degrees, before >>allowing taxi drivers >> (Why fool around?) Require taxi drivers to be rich! > >>Poor Wingate -- a real shame he must mix with those "immigrants", eh? > >Well, I don't take taxis in DC; all the places I want to go to are well-served >by the Metro, which doesn't get lost or attempt to gouge me for a fare or >insult me when I complain about bad service. None of this is of interest, >however; the point is that the economic forces don't serve to give customers >what they want. Neither does anything else! What people want is completely free travel in unbridled luxury and taking zero time. Sorry -- the best any society will give you is a choice of reasonable compromises. If you want drivers who will gouge you, complain about service, or insult you, you may find those all in NY. By the way, I'll bet I could find a limo service in DC -- would that be "what you want"? Failing that, I'll bet you could find some redneck company that doesn't rent taxis to immigrants, and you could deal only with them. But that would be ugly, don't you think? Far better to make it ILLEGAL for the immigrants to drive cabs YOU might get into. Oh, cost is an issue? Well, consider the fare on the metro, INCLUDING the hidden fare you pay in the form of taxes. If you ride the metro often, you may feel you're getting your money's worth (although such systems are VERY expensive to build) but what about the folks who've had to subsidize it willy-nilly? Or don't they count? Oh yes, what about the folks who wish to go to places the metro doesn't go to? >And whatever cracks you may want to make about immigrants, the fact is that >disproportionately, new immigrants drive taxis, and disproportionately, they >generate more complaints. Maybe I might consider using the taxis if there >were some assurance I would get decent service. I made no cracks about immigrants -- merely about your (apparent) attitude towards them. When I've visited DC, I've had no particular problems but it's not exactly my favorite town, and I don't like to stay there. What makes you say there's a "glut" of taxis, anyhow? Have you seen New York? If you want "decent" service, you should be willing to pay for it -- look harder, call one of the upscale cab companies or limo outfits, but don't whine about being unable to get "decent" service. >>>People who are making less than minimum wage don't have enough to servive >>>around here without subsidized housing and food stamps. > >>And so, lacking those, they would move somewhere else, so prices would >>go up in Washington, so people who insist on living there would bear the >>true costs of living there, and people in (say) Cleveland, Ohio, would >>not have to subsidize them. Is this so horribly unfair? > >In case you haven't noticed, moving is not free. People who misjudge and >move to places where they cannot get employment are often stuck there. No, moving is not free. But lots of folks have moved around to get better welfare benefits (for example). While moving may not be free, it is not all that expensive, either (especially if you're poor). Those immigrant taxi drivers seldom have to load up a lot of delicate furniture.... By the way -- TAXES aren't free either -- you'll notice you haven't answered my question: why should the people in Cleveland have to pay for the indigent in Washington? Would you be for a plan to pay the Washington poor to move to another city? Why not? (I would be against such a plan for several reasons, but why should YOU oppose it?) >>Yes, let's avoid confusion by all means: you may begin by avoiding >>the equation of "charity" with "forced charity". Your statment amounts >>to "once charity is agreed upon, it is moral to force people to pay". >>The ends justify the means, eh, Wingate? > >It depends on the ends and the means. So once we agree that charity is a good thing, you feel fine forcing people to pay it (even if they weren't specifically party to the agreement)? Or not? >> ... But they claim that the market is "undemocratic" because >> the number of "votes" -- that is, the number of dollars >> available to be spent -- varies widely from person to person. >> Therefore, they argue that the government should intervene in >> the market to redistribute wealth and income. > >> This argument correctly regards the free market as having its >> own internal logic, producing results, such as an unequal >> distribution of income independent of the desires of its >> supporters. It incorrectly treats the political process as if >> it had no corresponding internal logic of its own. The >> argument simply assumes that political institutions can be set >> up to produce any desired outcome. > >Oh, I agree with this. One can therefore back off and ask the question of >how to get the political system to do what is desirable, though, so this >isn't really an insurmountable problem. So *you* say -- there was an article in the WSJ a couple of months back arguing that in this century, internal repression was a much bigger killer than war (of course, both are State activities). This doesn't exactly make me think that only a few little details need be tweaked on government to make it a safe thing. I think you still owe us an apology. You claimed that: >>>in this case, once it is agreed that moral intent of charity is good as an >>>end, the present question becomes not whether to do away with welfare, but >>>rather what can be done to make it function more effectively. Libertarian >>>and Objectivist arguments don't even attempt to explore this possibility. And I said >> One cannot simply say "Let government help the poor." "Reform >> the income tax so that rich people really pay." Things are as >> they are for reasons. It would make as much sense for the >> defender of the free market to argue that when he sets up >> *his* free market it will produce equal wages for everyone. > >>Since I've cited this book quite often, I think you (once again) owe >>libertarians an apology. The notion that government COULD be used to >>redistribute wealth has been considered -- but it has the flaw that the >>wealth will flow according to political, not humane, considerations. > >The argument begs the >question of why the political system cannot be manipulated, No -- this argument points out that it's absurd to think that trusting politics will result in justice because they are two different concepts. Exactly HOW politics differs from justice should be clear to anyone who's ever been in a political campaign that lost, saw Nixon & Patty Hearst go free, or the Vietnam war extended. These things all strike me as quite obvious examples where what was politically expedient was done, rather than what is just, because our government is controlled by politics, not by justice. If the political system COULD be manipulated (even with a Titanic effort) into a just system, it would be silly to think that government could be our biggest killer, that Nixon should go free, or that we should have been half-in-and-half-out of the Vietnam war, or that 66,000,000 people could be killed in the years 1917-1959 in the Soviet Union by their government. I have my theories as to why the political system can't be manipulated in the way you seem to think would be so easy, but they may be controversial. I hope that the examples above, where (by any standard) such manipulation FAILED HORRIBLY, indicate that the proponents of such manipulation have NOT proved their case. Given the information in the WSJ article (quoted elsewhere on the net) such folks, with their well-meaning intent to perform surgery are our biggest danger: they have rusty knives and don't know it. Of course, the thing to realize is that the State is manipulated constantly, but not by the righteous, or the just, but rather those who are most adept at manipulating the state. To argue that the virtuous can tweak the state into submitting to virtue is to ignore the expertise shown by those who already manipulate it. It is as if you were to argue that the virtuous would be able to lift weights better. In fact it is the strong who lift weights best, not (necessarily) the virtuous. Now consider the State. If we were to say "whoever can lift this weight can rule us", you would be aghast! "How silly!" you would cry: "there's no logical correlation between strength and fitness to lead!" Now we take you to the legend of the Sword in the Stone -- and here comes Arthur to pull it out. "Well, that's different!" cries the Mob. Is it? Or are we substituting one illogical basis for allocating resources (you get the right to allocate them if you're good at yanking swords) for another? Now let's consider another alternative: Let's leave control of resources to those who discover and use them. Sure, it lacks the easy punch of the sword sliding out of the stone, or Alexander cutting the Gordian Knot with *his* sword, but I'm sick of these folks with swords and guns claiming that they have the right to steal from me (oh! wrapped up in "taxation" and the "common good" to be sure!) because of their expertise at swinging swords and the accumulation of their reputations. And you STILL owe us the apology for saying that libertarians "didn't even attempt" to explore the means of making welfare function more effectively. >...and also ignores >the consideration that the distribution produced by politics might be better >than that produced by an uncontrolled and unmonitored marketplace Better an uncontrolled and unmonitored marketplace than uncontrolled and unmonitored governments! Where were the monitors and controls when Stalin cranked up (hint: some were praising him!). Where were the monitors and controls when Pol Pot started having REAL fun in Asia? When only a Soviet veto prevented Vietnam from being labeled an aggressor nation in the UN? Given that NEITHER an uncontrolled an unmonitored marketplace, NOR an uncontrolled and unmonitored political arena will necessarily result in good outcomes, and given only these two choices, which does one pick? The answer is easy: if the ship is under attack, don't put people in irons -- free them! Do you think that disallowing Soviet Vetoes would make the UN work right? Of course not! They would certainly veto the elimination of their veto, and then where would you be? Both the market and politics are structures in which people PURSUE THEIR OWN ENDS. It's (often) fatally naive to think otherwise, and yet here we have Wingate telling us that the process need be tweaked only a little more ("nothing prevents...") and things will fall into place (the "political system will do what is desirable"). Hogwash! I do *NOT* claim a free market solves all of our problems (although Sevener has stated that libertarians make this claim). I DO argue that world political participants have a poorer (and bloodier) record than any comparable (in time and stature) behavior by market participants. Take all the mortgage-foreclosing, gun-producing, plantation-holding bad guys on one side and you'll find their evil lightweight compared to one Mao, let alone one Stalin! So, Wingate, if it's so easy to "fix" politics, why is internal government repression such a big killer? Do you suppose we just need a committee or two more? Perhaps we should hold fewer meetings at lunch? >>>>In fact, governments are about 1/2 as efficient as private enterprise in >>>>most things (cf, Friedman, David, "The Machinery of Freedom") and someone >>>>posted on the net some time ago statistics indicating the government >>>>is MONUMENTALLY bad at charity. (The claim was that to give >>>>one dollar to a person via one's church typically cost $1.03, to give >>>>it via United Way cost $1.15, and to give it via the federal government >>>>cost $5.00). > >>>It simply >>>isn't a valid argument against anything except the current set-up in HHS. > >>As Friedman says, things are as they are for a reason. To put your >>faith in government, but ignore the governmental dynamic, is the height >>of danger. > >Again, the fallacy that governmental structure is uncontrollable. Fallacy? So who controls it? And how is it made to do that which is desirable? Or are you arguing (oh Heavens!) that nobody bothered to put forth the effort? Or that nobody (not even a tenth of the 66,000,000) felt motivated enough? Face it -- it's uncontrollable if it's flexible enough to be useful (because people will use it for their purposes, not yours), and certainly uncontrollable if it is frozen in concrete (because the FREEZERS will have their own goals, not yours, in mind). >>>THere's nothing, as far as I know, that wouldn't prevent the current HHS >>>from being taken apart and being reassembled in some radically different and >>>hopefully much more efficient way-- after all, it isn't as though we've made >>>attempt at all to figure out what the best way to do this is. > >>In which case, all you have to do is prove me wrong -- and you can >>do this by causing the HHS to be re-assembled in some radically different >>and hopefully much more efficient way. >>(What? You can't do it? But you just said "nothing [...] prevents...") >>Perhaps, instead of "nothing, as far as I know", you should have said >>"nothing I'm willing to think about". > >Ah, I didn't say that *I* could do it, or even that *I* knew how it should >be arranged. As a manager and director of people, I am decidedly no better >than third-rate. No -- you said that "nothing prevents". If you argue that YOU couldn't do it because you don't know how, then your IGNORANCE prevents such restructuring. If you argue that somebody knows how, but won't, then his stubbornness prevents it. Get the picture? To say that NOTHING prevents it is to imply that it could be easily done, but there isn't the slightest indication that this is so, and the fact that *I* can't change the government in important ways is enough to prove to me that *SOMETHING* prevents me from doing it. >There are a number of reasons why we have what we have. They could be >changed by electing different officials and making sure that those who >didn't see to it that bureaucracies were restrained were canned forthwith. Question-begging! What prevents the ones we've GOT from doing this? What prevents the new ones from the same hazards? Answer: nothing and nothing! The political forces are as potent, perhaps MORE potent than market forces, and, guess what: Unlike free market forces they can take your wealth for a reward for behavior that displeases you! >If you are willing to argue that this is impractical, are you will to admit >that a libertarian government is impractical, for precisely the same reasons? Heavens no! To the extent that it is impractical to rely upon politicians to make good judgements, it is MORE practical to depend on them less and less. In other words to the extent you distrust political forces you should weaken their agents. This is as practical as killing (or, if you can, curing) a rabid dog before it bites you. If you can't kill or cure it (as seems the case with governments) you should make sure it can't reach you, or is unlikely to reach you. Oh sure, it *might* turn out to be trying to save your life, but the 66,000,000 flecks of foam on the jaws is persuasive to me that it isn't. The justification for depending on politics has always been that it would be better than NOT depending on politics, but it's not clear that this is the case ... and if it isn't, the choice is between keeping our freedoms and surrendering them FOR NO GOOD CAUSE! >>>And when no such jobs appear? > >>Sorry -- you have no faith in economic theory, so you'll just have to >>look at the incredible unemployment in Hong Kong and Singapore to prove >>me wrong, right? > >You can hardly call any Asian economy unplanned; all have high degrees of >governmental control. Really? I suggest you read up on it a little. This was the popular perception for a while, but has fallen back before the onslaught of facts. For example, I understand that MITI, far from being a directing organization in the fascist sense, mostly acts as an arena for generating consensus among its members -- a sort of standards organization applied to strategy. Naturally it has an impact -- but not in the sense of a "high degree of government control". >The Asians are at the moment more *successful*, but >in many cases (particularly in Hong Kong) this prosperity is acheived >through highly illegal practices which amount to fraud of American firms. If you mean to imply that Hong Kong *as a country* is engaged in "highly illegal practices" then all we have to do is tweak the laws so that... So why haven't we done it? No -- you can't simply choose to elect other officials, or pass new laws -- the old legislators are not demonstrably less corruptible than the new, and the new laws no more binding than the old. Not that I would advocate passing trade sanctions against Hong Kong, except, perhaps, allowing seizure of counterfeit goods -- but is *is* a case in point for any who argue that politics may simply be "done better" somehow. It's already being done as best we know how, and the results are miserable. This is not to say we can escape politics, but we can draw its fangs, drain its strength, further blur its focus. >>>The problem is that this politics depends >>>upon the assurance that the economy will stabilize itself into "full" >>>employment if left alone (full in this case meaning that the only unemployed >>>would be those changing jobs and those who "deserved" it). THere simply is >>>no economic assurance of this, and historically we have often had periods >>>where the economy had settled into a state of significant high unemployment. > >>Right -- Smoot-Hawley was a good one! The Great Depression (following a >>massive governmental in the money supply) is another. Both delightful >>products of state meddling. Since you've no faith in economic theory, >>there's no reason for me to try to convince *you* that a free society >>means very low unemployment (frictional only, as Daniel Mck. pointed out). >>You'll just have to take my word for it... > >Why should I take your word on it, when I could just as well take >Galbraith's word that you are wrong? Or Mc Kiernan's word for it that I'm right? You'll have to decide this for yourself, but if you've really no faith in economic theory, you'll just have to flip a coin (if you've still got one) and HOPE it comes up correctly.