Left-libertarianism
Ron Allen
> Left-libertarianism has been around for awhile, and will probably grow.
> A lot of us aren't going to let the capitalist libertarians steal the
> "freedom and liberty" discourse, those are the values of the left, and
> values often contrary to the workings of capitalism. You just have to
> live with the fact that there are alternate forms of libertarian
> thought, one capitalist, one from the left. And left-libertarians are
> as anti-communist and anti-Stalinist as capitalist libertarians. We are
> appalled at government abuses of power, government killings and
> militarism as any capitalist libertarian. We just don't think the
> capitalist system offers a solution that creates liberty.
Ron Allen answers:
Very well written post, and very much to the point.
The only difference of opinion I have with you is your
statement that "left-libertarians are as anti-communist
. . . as capitalist libertarians. I believe there is a
libertarian version of communism. I think this is also
called "communitarianism". I consider myself a left-
libertarian, and also a libertarian communist -- i.e.,
an anarcho-libertarian, demotic communism rather than
despotic communism.
<><><><><><><>
"In the early days of the Indian Territory, there were no
such things as birth certificates. You being there was
certificate enough."
-- Will Rogers
Ron Allen
> To even think there are people on the left who are libertarian shows
> your ignorance or dishonesty at it's best. The left is against individual
> freedom, always has and always will.
Ron Allen answers:
In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels described the
post-capitalist society they envisioned in these words:
"In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes
and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in
which the free development of each is the condition for
the free development of all."
You may think that the left proposes an organization of
society that is inadvertently and unintentionally opposed
to individual freedom, but I think that you are guilty of
misrepresentation of leftist opinion when you say that
the left is against individual freedom, as if the left
were purposefully or intentionally against individual
freedom.
Karl Marx wrote: "Follow your own bent, no matter what
people say." Are those the words of someone who is
consciously against individual liberty?
<><><><><><><><>
"A person gets from a symbol the meaning he puts into it."
-- The United States Supreme Court
Ron Allen
> Left-libertarianism has been around for awhile, and will probably grow.
> A lot of us aren't going to let the capitalist libertarians steal the
> "freedom and liberty" discourse, those are the values of the left, and
> values often contrary to the workings of capitalism. You just have to
> live with the fact that there are alternate forms of libertarian
> thought, one capitalist, one from the left. And left-libertarians are
> as anti-communist and anti-Stalinist as capitalist libertarians. We are
> appalled at government abuses of power, government killings and
> militarism as any capitalist libertarian. We just don't think the
> capitalist system offers a solution that creates liberty.
Ron Allen answers:
Very well written post, and very much to the point.
The only difference of opinion I have with you is your
statement that "left-libertarians are as anti-communist
. . . as capitalist libertarians". I believe there is a
Dana
news:3AC628F9...@bellsouth.net...
He wanted the rich as rulers, and the poor as slaves to the state.
In the first place, the rise of wages leads to overwork among the
workers. The more they want to earn the more they must sacrifice their
time and freedom and work like slaves in the service of avarice. In
doing so, they shorten their lives. But this is all to the good of the
working class as a whole, since it creates a renewed demand. This class
must always sacrifice a part of itself if it is to avoid total
destruction.
Scott Erb
Ron Allen wrote:
>
> Scott Erb wrote:
> > Left-libertarianism has been around for awhile, and will probably grow.
> > A lot of us aren't going to let the capitalist libertarians steal the
> > "freedom and liberty" discourse, those are the values of the left, and
> > values often contrary to the workings of capitalism. You just have to
> > live with the fact that there are alternate forms of libertarian
> > thought, one capitalist, one from the left. And left-libertarians are
> > as anti-communist and anti-Stalinist as capitalist libertarians. We are
> > appalled at government abuses of power, government killings and
> > militarism as any capitalist libertarian. We just don't think the
> > capitalist system offers a solution that creates liberty.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Very well written post, and very much to the point.
>
> The only difference of opinion I have with you is your
> statement that "left-libertarians are as anti-communist
> . . . as capitalist libertarians". I believe there is a
> libertarian version of communism. I think this is also
> called "communitarianism". I consider myself a left-
> libertarian, and also a libertarian communist -- i.e.,
> an anarcho-libertarian, demotic communism rather than
> despotic communism.
The danger with your formulation is that is easily twisted into
associating your ideas wrongly with Stalin and the thugs who were driven
by a desire to centralize power. These discussions turn into discursive
games, where the words you use are twisted to use against you by those
who don't care about ideas. I do think that the future lies with ideas
that recognize that liberty and community are not contradictory, and I
guess part of the battle is opening up that kind of discourse, breaking
the strangle hold the capitalist/communist left/right dichotomy has on
the western mind these days.
cheers, scott
D Stephen Heersink
>> Left-libertarianism has been around for awhile, and will probably grow.
>> A lot of us aren't going to let the capitalist libertarians steal the
>> "freedom and liberty" discourse, those are the values of the left, and
>> values often contrary to the workings of capitalism. You just have to
>> live with the fact that there are alternate forms of libertarian
>> thought, one capitalist, one from the left. And left-libertarians are
>> as anti-communist and anti-Stalinist as capitalist libertarians. We are
>> appalled at government abuses of power, government killings and
>> militarism as any capitalist libertarian. We just don't think the
>> capitalist system offers a solution that creates liberty.
Despite the Left's efforts to appropriate "libertarianism" to itself:
The appellation "libertarian" belongs not to the Left as long as the
Left is hostile to the spontaneous association of individuals to
participate freely and according to the dictates of their own
volitions, including the free market, rather than being coerced
through some form of central planning, social ownership of the means
of production, and the failure of individuals to pursuit their own
self-interests rather than those dictated to them by the State. That
IS the difference, and it makes all the difference in the world and
the word.
___________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@worldnet.att.net
http://home.att.net/~dshsfca/OBC.html
gjoh...@eudoramail.com
> Marx was not for individual liberty, he was for a collective state of mind.
> He wanted the rich as rulers, and the poor as slaves to the state.
No he didn't.
Scott Erb
Left libertarians are usually averse to central planning or coerced
social ownership of property. The difference is that most Left
Libertarians believe that a sense of community and shared property
rights can be voluntary. The difference I see with at least my views
and those of capitalist libertarians is that the capitalist
libertarians, while correctly seeing the dangers of big, coercive
government, don't see the dangers of big coercive MONEY. They seem to
have a naive belief that markets are magic, and don't recognize that
actors who manage to gain considerable wealth and power within the
market can use that to disadvantage others and even circumvent pure
markets. Also, they don't recognize STRUCTURAL power, how classes of
people can end up with structural advantages due to the distribution of
wealth, and that this can create not just unequal outcomes, but unequal
opportunity, unequal liberty.
The answer isn't big government. But it's also not pure market
capitalism. Those two extremes each have real problems, and neither is
especially conducive to true liberty.
Ron Allen
> Left-libertarianism has been around for awhile, and will probably grow.
> A lot of us aren't going to let the capitalist libertarians steal the
> "freedom and liberty" discourse, those are the values of the left, and
> values often contrary to the workings of capitalism. You just have to
> live with the fact that there are alternate forms of libertarian
> thought, one capitalist, one from the left. And left-libertarians are
> as anti-communist and anti-Stalinist as capitalist libertarians. We are
> appalled at government abuses of power, government killings and
> militarism as any capitalist libertarian. We just don't think the
> capitalist system offers a solution that creates liberty.
Ron Allen wrote:
> Very well written post, and very much to the point.
> The only difference of opinion I have with you is your statement that
> "left-libertarians are as anti-communist . . . as capitalist libertarians".
> I believe there is a libertarian version of communism. I think this is
> also called "communitarianism". I consider myself a left-libertarian,
> and also a libertarian communist -- i.e., an anarcho-libertarian, demotic
> communism rather than despotic communism.
Scott Erb wrote:
> The danger with your formulation is that is easily twisted into associating
> your ideas wrongly with Stalin and the thugs who were driven by a desire to
> centralize power.
Ron Allen answers:
I am trying very hard to clarify my ideas and opinions,
precisely in order to preclude just such an easy twisting
of my ideas and opinions into just another paraphrase of
old-time bolshevism. It is those who oppose my ideas and
opinions, not those that respect my ideas and opinions,
who keep on interlacing my ideas and opinions with
archetypal bolshevism and fascism.
Scott Erb wrote:
> These discussions turn into discursive games, where the words you use
> are twisted to use against you by those who don't care about ideas.
Ron Allen answers:
Am I to be silenced by those who do not care about ideas,
and about the free expression of ideas?
Scott Erb wrote:
> I do think that the future lies with ideas that recognize that liberty
> and community are not contradictory, and I guess part of the battle is
> opening up that kind of discourse, breaking the strangle hold the
> apitalist/communist left/right dichotomy has on the western mind these
> days.
<><><><><><><><><><>
Dreams have as much influence as actions."
-- Stéphane Mallarmé
Ron Allen
> http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=libertarian
> lib·er·tar·i·an (lbr-tār-n)
> n.
> One who believes in freedom of action and thought.
> One who believes in free will.
Scott D. Erb wrote:
> Dictionary definitions are very bad in discussing complex political
> ideologies.
Ron Allen answers:
That is very true. But also, dictionaries define word
usage -- i.e., how words are actually used.
Dictionaries are not intended to dictate word meanings
-- i.e., how words are supposed to be used.
Scott D. Erb wrote:
> The universe of people who are not libertarians ideologically but
> believe in freedom of action and thought and free will is huge.
Ron Allen answers:
But there are people who uncritically think they believe
in freedom of action, of thought, and of volition, but
in fact they have beliefs that are contrary to what they
think they believe. Libertarians tend to be more
critical of what they think, and tend to look out for
ideas and beliefs that contradict their primary concern
for and belief in human freedom. Libertarians tend to
subordinate all their other beliefs to a core belief in
human freedom.
Scott D. Erb wrote:
> Also, those definitions are a bit vague. What, exactly, is free will?
> How do we know if we have it?
Ron Allen answers:
Libertarianism assumes that we have volitional freedom.
Free will cannot be proven. If can only be postulated.
Libertarians presume human freedom. They do not prove
human freedom.
Scott D. Erb wrote:
> What is freedom of action and thought?
<><><><><><><><><>
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must,
like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it."
-- Thomas Paine
Ron Allen
> If I understand him correctly, what Ron has been advocating is an
> anarchist version. That in itself is not necessarily inconsistent
> with libertarianism (since presumably everyone would not be forced
> to participate in it).
Ron Allen answers:
The democratic socialism I advocate is
anarcho-libertarian.
<><><><><><><><><>
"But humor is also the joy which has overcome the world."
-- Sören Aabye Kierkegaard
Ron Allen
> Socialism cannot exist if everyone has free will.
Ron Allen wrote:
> If this is true, if your assertion is axiomatically given, then
> socialism cannot exist. Everyone certainly does have free will.
Eagle Eye wrote:
> My choice of words was poor. I intended to say that socialism
> cannot exist if everyone is permitted to exercise their free
> will.
Ron Allen answers:
Again, if this is true, if your assertion is axiomatically
given, then socialism cannot exist. Everyone certainly
must be permitted the free exercise of their wills.
Eagle Eye wrote:
> Even that is not specific enough as there is a technical loophole.
<><><><><><><><>
"Every beginning is a consequence -- every beginning
ends something."
-- Paul Valéry
Ron Allen
> Given the choice, people will do what is in their own interest,
> i.e. capitalism.
Ron Allen wrote:
> Capitalism is in the interest of the capitalists.
Eagle Eye wrote:
> And, if everyone is a capitalist...
Ron Allen answers:
If everyone is a capitalist, I suppose that would mean
every person owns the means of production, and so perhaps
that would be socialism/communism?
Ron Allen wrote:
> If people, given a choice, always make the very same choice, there
> is no free will. Free will implies a real choice, not just a pro
> forma choice. You seem to believe human beings will make the very
> same predictable choice every time and every where.
Eagle Eye wrote:
> Exactly wrong.
> Being a rational person necessarily requires the free will to make
> decisions. The assumption of capitalism is that people will, more
> than not, act in their own interest. This is not predictable due
> to the fact that people's interests are frequently complex and
> competing choices may offer benefits which are not starkly different.
> Producers would have it made if they could predict consumer decisions
> with any certainty. But, they must rely on signals in the form of
> purchases to guide them.
Ron Allen answers:
Does anything you just wrote contradict what I said in
the immediately preceding pericope?
<><><><><><><><><>
"The chief cause of problems is solutions."
-- Eric Sevareid
Eudaimonus
> Eagle Eye wrote:
> > Given the choice, people will do what is in their own interest,
> > i.e. capitalism.
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
> > Capitalism is in the interest of the capitalists.
>
> Eagle Eye wrote:
> > And, if everyone is a capitalist...
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> If everyone is a capitalist, I suppose that would mean
> every person owns the means of production, and so perhaps
> that would be socialism/communism?
You are confusing the collective"all" for the distributive "each".
Definitions : P = owns their means of production C=is citizen of the society
What Eagle Eye was referring to :
Ax(Cx->Px)
Socialism/Communism is :
P{x:Cx}
In other words 1) For all x, if x is a citizen, then x owns their means of
production - 2) The set of all x where x is a citizen, owns it's own means
of production.
But the set of all x can have a property that none of the members of the set
has (indeed, it has the property of being a set, for one). So, it is
possible for "all men" to "own their own means of production" and "each man"
not to "own their own means of production" in the very same society -
indeed, the two are quite contradictory, if it is considered given that only
one person or group can own a thing.
What you committed, when you misunderstood his position as you did, was
commit the fallacy of composition.
If the works of all socialist moral theorist were subject to testing as
against the fallacies of composition and division, I have little doubt they
would all fail.
After all, what is their base of reasoning about social issues but "Let's
make Q{x} so that Ax(Qx)". But that is fallacious reasoning.
Eagle Eye
Ron Allen <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Eagle Eye wrote:
>> Socialism cannot exist if everyone has free will.
>Ron Allen wrote:
>> If this is true, if your assertion is axiomatically given, then
>> socialism cannot exist. Everyone certainly does have free will.
>Eagle Eye wrote:
>> My choice of words was poor. I intended to say that socialism
>> cannot exist if everyone is permitted to exercise their free
>> will.
>Ron Allen answers:
>Again, if this is true, if your assertion is axiomatically
>given, then socialism cannot exist. Everyone certainly
>must be permitted the free exercise of their wills.
So, for example, when people are murdered, put in GULAGs, put in
"mental hospitals," etc. and not permitted to exercise their free
will, socialism can exist.
=====
EE
Eagle Eye
Ron Allen <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Eagle Eye wrote:
>> Given the choice, people will do what is in their own interest,
>> i.e. capitalism.
>Ron Allen wrote:
>> Capitalism is in the interest of the capitalists.
>Eagle Eye wrote:
>> And, if everyone is a capitalist...
>Ron Allen answers:
>If everyone is a capitalist, I suppose that would mean
>every person owns the means of production, and so perhaps
>that would be socialism/communism?
You make a false assumption.
A worker who voluntarily agrees with the owner of a business to
trade labor for salary is a capitalist. He participates in a
free market, wherein values are exchanged voluntarily.
>Ron Allen wrote:
>> If people, given a choice, always make the very same choice, there
>> is no free will. Free will implies a real choice, not just a pro
>> forma choice. You seem to believe human beings will make the very
>> same predictable choice every time and every where.
>Eagle Eye wrote:
>> Exactly wrong.
>
>> Being a rational person necessarily requires the free will to make
>> decisions. The assumption of capitalism is that people will, more
>> than not, act in their own interest. This is not predictable due
>> to the fact that people's interests are frequently complex and
>> competing choices may offer benefits which are not starkly different.
>
>> Producers would have it made if they could predict consumer decisions
>> with any certainty. But, they must rely on signals in the form of
>> purchases to guide them.
>Ron Allen answers:
>Does anything you just wrote contradict what I said in
>the immediately preceding pericope?
Did you not notice that you claimed I "believe human beings will
make the very same predictable choice every time and every where"?
=====
EE
Ron Allen
> When people are murdered, put in GULAGs, put in "mental hospitals,"
> exist.
Ron Allen answers:
Are you saying these describe how you understand the kind
of socialism I advocate?
<><><><><><><><><>
"Writing is like carrying a fetus."
-- Edna O'Brien
Eagle Eye
Ron Allen <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Eagle Eye wrote:
>> When people are murdered, put in GULAGs, put in "mental hospitals,"
>> etc. and not permitted to exercise their free will, socialism can
>> exist.
>Ron Allen answers:
>Are you saying these describe how you understand the kind
>of socialism I advocate?
These describe actual methods which have been used to enforce
socialism (whether or not that system lived up to some theoretical
ideal).
Now, tell me how you want to create a system in which such things
cannot happen.
=====
EE
Eagle Eye
Eudaimonus <jeff...@deja.com> wrote:
>Ron Allen <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:3ACBDBEE...@bellsouth.net...
>> Eagle Eye wrote:
>> > Given the choice, people will do what is in their own interest,
>> > i.e. capitalism.
>>
>> Ron Allen wrote:
>> > Capitalism is in the interest of the capitalists.
>>
>> Eagle Eye wrote:
>> > And, if everyone is a capitalist...
>>
>> Ron Allen answers:
>> If everyone is a capitalist, I suppose that would mean
>> every person owns the means of production, and so perhaps
>> that would be socialism/communism?
>You are confusing the collective"all" for the distributive "each".
>
>Definitions : P = owns their means of production C=is citizen of the society
>
>What Eagle Eye was referring to :
>
>Ax(Cx->Px)
>
>Socialism/Communism is :
>
>P{x:Cx}
>
>In other words 1) For all x, if x is a citizen, then x owns their means of
>production - 2) The set of all x where x is a citizen, owns it's own means
>of production.
No, that's not what I was saying.
I do not see that it is necessary for someone to own any means of production,
beyond his own labor, talent, intelligence, etc., to be a capitalist.
>But the set of all x can have a property that none of the members of the set
>has (indeed, it has the property of being a set, for one). So, it is
>possible for "all men" to "own their own means of production" and "each man"
>not to "own their own means of production" in the very same society -
>indeed, the two are quite contradictory, if it is considered given that only
>one person or group can own a thing.
>
>What you committed, when you misunderstood his position as you did, was
>commit the fallacy of composition.
>
>If the works of all socialist moral theorist were subject to testing as
>against the fallacies of composition and division, I have little doubt they
>would all fail.
Agreed.
>After all, what is their base of reasoning about social issues but "Let's
>make Q{x} so that Ax(Qx)". But that is fallacious reasoning.
=====
EE
Eagle Eye
Ron Allen <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[snip]
>The democratic socialism I advocate is
>anarcho-libertarian.
The vegetarian diet I advocate is replete with t-bone steaks
and prime rib.
=====
EE
Ron Allen
> When people are murdered, put in GULAGs, put in "mental hospitals,"
> etc. and not permitted to exercise their free will, socialism can
> exist.
Ron Allen wrote:
> Are you saying these describe how you understand the kind of
> socialism I advocate?
Eagle Eye wrote:
> These describe actual methods which have been used to enforce
> socialism (whether or not that system lived up to some theoretical
> ideal).
Ron Allen answers:
That is exactly the problem. The methods of fraud, force
and fear were used to enforce a model of socialism that
never did live up to the theoretical ideals and political
principles of authentic socialism -- humanistic ideas,
libertarian ideas, and democratic ideas. The socialisms
that you refer to were not democratically constituted,
and so they had to be dictatorially constructed and
conserved. Bolshevism was anti-democratic from the very
beginning, and so it was fated to never live up to the
authentic ideals and practices of democratic socialism.
Bolshevism ended up being done away with as soon as
Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev introduced some measure of
democracy in the Soviet Union with his perestroika and
glasnost policies.
Eagle Eye wrote:
> Now, tell me how you want to create a system in which such things
> cannot happen.
Ron Allen answers:
I want the system to be desired by the people, demanded
by the people, and designed and developed by the people.
I am only giving my voice/vote in favor of a social
democratic commonwealth when I argue for and advocate
democratic socialism. Such things as you describe will
not happen -- our ought not happen -- if the socialism
that is constructed from the very first is a democratic
and libertarian model of socialism. I see no reason for
an educated and enlightened majority to employ force,
fraud or fear in order to mold, manage and maintain a
democratic version of socialism.
<><><><><><><>
"Hope is a gift we give ourselves, and it remains when all
else is gone."
-- Naomi Judd
Ron Allen
> The democratic socialism I advocate is anarcho-libertarian.
Eagle Eye wrote:
> The vegetarian diet I advocate is replete with t-bone steaks
> and prime rib.
Ron Allen answers:
An all vegetable diet simply cannot possibly include a
carnivorous selection. It is a logical and material
impossibility. But it is not a logical or material
impossibility to create an anarcho-libertarian version
of democratic socialism."
<><><><><><><><><>
"The secrets of success do not work unless you do."
-- John A. Hamilton, Jr.
Ron Allen
> The word [i.e., libertarian] is derived from liberty, yet you
> claim it "refers to free will and NOT LIBERTY" [emphasis mine].
Ron Allen answers:
Libertarianism makes reference to both political liberty
(free expression of the people's will) and personal
liberty (free expression of a person's will). The Latin
expression for "free will" is "liberum arbitrium".
Eagle Eye wrote:
> Socialism is about collective rights, not individual rights.
Ron Allen answers:
As democratic, socialism is about collective rights.
As libertarian, socialism is about individual rights.
Majority rule is the collective rights side of socialism.
Minority rights is the private and personal rights side
of socialism.
You can define socialism so that it excludes individual
rights by definition, or you can define socialism so
that it includes individual rights by definition. It
is interesting to note that those who define socialism
so that it excludes individual rights are the anti-
socialists, and those who define socialism so that it
includes individual rights are the pro-socialists.
Question: Who ought to define socialism? Socialists?
Or anti-socialists?
Eagle Eye wrote:
> When the government denies individuals economic liberty, it is a lie
> to call it "libertarian."
Ron Allen answers:
That is true and correct.
Socialism is not about a bourgeois police state denying
economic liberty. There are those who believe the only
possible expression of individual economic liberty is a
free-market expression of bourgeois liberty. And there
are others (libertarian social democrats) who believe
the best possible expression of individual economic
liberty is a market-free expression of political and
economic liberty, a free-sharing and gift-giving economy.
<><><><><><><><>
"Silent gratitude isn't very much use to anyone."
-- G. B. Stern
Ron Allen
> Free will implies the ability to choose between many alternatives.
> Eagle Eye projects his own beliefs and attitudes on to others to
> assume that others exercising their free will would choose as he
> does. That is not warranted.
Ron Allen answers:
I agree.
Eagle Eye wrote:
> Given the choice, people will do what is in their own interest,
> i.e. capitalism.
Ron Allen wrote:
> Capitalism is in the interest of the capitalists.
Scott Erb wrote:
> People have already exercised their free will to limit pure capitalism
> and create mixed systems. I don't think people will choose to go back,
> but they could...they have free will.
Ron Allen answers:
I agree.
Ron Allen answers:
> If people, given a choice, always make the very same choice, there
> is no free will. Free will implies a real choice, not just a pro
> forma choice. You seem to believe human beings will make the very
> same predictable choice every time and every where.
Scott Erb wrote:
> It's argument on the cheap, a slogan and an assertion.
Ron Allen answers:
Again, I agree.
"To know the world, one must construct it."
-- Cesare Pavese
Scott Erb wrote:
> To construct a world one must transform an existing world, and to do
> that one must show people who to see the world differently, and how
> to expand their options and possibilities.
Ron Allen answers:
Again, I am forced to agree with you, Scott.
<><><><><><><><><>
"As many suffer from too much as too little."
-- Christian Nestell Bovee
Ron Allen
> Eagle Eye projects his own beliefs.
Eagle Eye wrote:
> Whine some more about personal attacks while making plenty of
> dishonest personal attacks.
> Do you ever believe anything you write?
Ron Allen answers:
I think we are all projecting our own beliefs. But only
a critical mind will be aware of this, and not give in to
it without a fight -- an inner struggle and a persistent
self-criticism.
Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> Is he [i.e., Scott Erb] wrong?
> Do you [i.e., Eagle Eye] not project your own belief on others?
> Did you not assume that everybody would somehow accept the ideas
> about private property that you happen to believe in as true?
> I think you did exactly that.
> But I know that I disagree with you.
Ron Allen answers:
And if you disagree freely, then is that not an honest
disagreement?
Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> You [i.e., Eagle Eye] can claim that my disagreement is an initiation
> of force, and that your forcing me to accept private property rights
> as you envision them is thus defence [i.e., self defense -R. Allen],
> but it won't be true.
<><><><><><><><>
"The more you give, the more you receive."
-- Diane Grant
Ron Allen
> Also note that government regulations and government's ability to use
> force keep businesses in check. Also the structural power that money
> provides, both directly (influence on government, ability to get one's
> way) and indirectly (class differences lead to differences in education,
> health care, nutrition, opportunity, all creating an uneven opportunity
> structure which benefits some at the expense of others). Capitalist
> libertarians completely ignore or dismiss structural power, despite it's
> obvious impact on social life.
Ron Allen answers:
If you wish to defend a libertarian model of capitalism,
you have to ignore the structural power of wealth and
money, both economically and politically, or else your
readers and listeners will immediately see behind your
façade of libertarian pretense.
<><><><><><><><><>
"Pleasure must be bought, but happiness is free."
-- Anonymous
Ron Allen
> Capitalist libertarians completely ignore or dismiss structural power,
> despite it's obvious impact on social life.
Eric Gorr wrote:
> I have noticed the same thing, although you may be overstating the
> situation a bit.
> However, assuming it was true, would that be reason enough to reject
> libertarianism out-of-hand?
Ron Allen answers:
That might be a valid reason for rejecting a capitalist
version of libertarianism, but not a very good reason for
perhaps rejecting a social democratic version of
libertarianism.
Eric Gorr wrote:
> Every theory tends to ignore, downplay, etc.. those things that
> contract [contradict?] the theory. Now while scientific theories,
> in theory, have accepted methods for dealing with this situation,
> in the political and economic realm, the situation is far more
> complex since the only way to truly understand how a theory
> functions is to put it into practice and hope it doesn't really
> mess things up for real human beings.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"Be to others kind and true, as you'd have others be to
you."
-- Isaac Watts
Ron Allen
> I think capitalist libertarianism is misguided because I don't think it really
> would achieve the goal of maximum liberty. In one of the early posts in this
> thread I gave a rather long definition of what I think left libertarianism is
> (others, like Ron, have a more anarcho-socialist notion of left
> libertarianism). I don't see myself as anti-libertarian, but having a
> libertarian view skeptical of capitalism.
Ron Allen answers:
Libertarianism is a philosophical/political solution to
a problem. The content of the libertarian solution has
a lot to do with the content of the problem -- and the
problem is capitalism.
Of course, capitalism was itself an ideological and
political solution to the problems it was intended to
solve. Capitalism has solved some of the problems it
was created and established to solve, but capitalism
cannot solve its own problems -- the problems it has
created. Socialism is intended to resolve the inner
contradictions of capitalism. And whatever problems
develop in socialism, some other political practice
will be invented to solve its inner problems.
Scott Erb wrote:
> There is so much data out there, and so many ways of interpreting it,
> and anyone can find a way to gather particular data and interpret it
> to fit one's theories. This ranges from political ideology to
> conspiracy theories about governmental plots. The wide range of data
> makes it possible for people to hold on to their biases and beliefs
> no matter what. The only solution is for people to be as self-critical
> as they are other-critical. That is rare, unfortunately.
<><><><><><><><><>
"The one who never walks except where tracks are seen
will make no discoveries."
-- Anonymous
Ron Allen
> Democracy has nothing to do with economic exchanges of values.
Ron Allen answers:
Right on! Indeed, democracy has very little to do with
commercial exchange in a free-market capitalist economy.
And of course, those who argue for and advocate a
social democratic political economy are also arguing for
and advocating a market-free cooperative economy.
<><><><><><><><><>
"I believe we are here on planet earth to live, grow up
and do what we can to make this world a better place for
all people to enjoy freedom."
-- Rosa Parks
GroundZero
officer for the week.
Ron Allen wrote in message <3ACF38D9...@bellsouth.net>...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
David Friedman
Ron Allen <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Ron Allen answers:
> If you wish to defend a libertarian model of capitalism,
> you have to ignore the structural power of wealth and
> money, both economically and politically, or else your
> readers and listeners will immediately see behind your
> façade of libertarian pretense.
On the contrary.
To defend a libertarian model of capitalism, you point out the political
power of wealth, and observe that it means that government interventions
justified as promoting competition actually get used to suppress it. The
conclusion is not that you get rid of the capitalism but that you get
rid of the political institutions.
As to the "structural power of wealth and money ... economically," part
of the point of the argument for capitalism is that as long as people
are limited to voluntary exchange, as opposed to the involuntary methods
of politics, my wealth can "control" you only by offering you
alternatives to those you would have without it. Hence economically,
wealth is power in the sense that having wealth gives you opportunities,
but usually not power in the sense of the ability to reduce the
opportunities of others.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Jim Gillogly
>
> We live in an anarcho-synuous commune, we each act as a sort of executive
> officer for the week.
That's "anarcho-syndicalist."
But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at
a special bi-weekly meeting.
--
Jim Gillogly
16 Astron S.R. 2001, 19:49
12.19.8.2.2, 3 Ik 5 Uayeb, Sixth Lord of Night
Eagle Eye
Ron Allen <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Scott Erb wrote:
>> Eagle Eye projects his own beliefs.
>Eagle Eye wrote:
>> Whine some more about personal attacks while making plenty of
>> dishonest personal attacks.
>
>> Do you ever believe anything you write?
>Ron Allen answers:
>I think we are all projecting our own beliefs. But only
>a critical mind will be aware of this, and not give in to
>it without a fight -- an inner struggle and a persistent
>self-criticism.
>
>Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
>> Is he [i.e., Scott Erb] wrong?
>
>> Do you [i.e., Eagle Eye] not project your own belief on others?
>
>> Did you not assume that everybody would somehow accept the ideas
>> about private property that you happen to believe in as true?
>
>> I think you did exactly that.
>
>> But I know that I disagree with you.
>Ron Allen answers:
>And if you disagree freely, then is that not an honest
>disagreement?
With Scott Erb, I long ago gave up that prospect.
=====
EE
Scott Erb
David Friedman wrote:
> In article <3ACF5CF2...@bellsouth.net>,
> Ron Allen <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Ron Allen answers:
> > If you wish to defend a libertarian model of capitalism,
> > you have to ignore the structural power of wealth and
> > money, both economically and politically, or else your
> > readers and listeners will immediately see behind your
> > façade of libertarian pretense.
>
> On the contrary.
>
> To defend a libertarian model of capitalism, you point out the political
> power of wealth, and observe that it means that government interventions
> justified as promoting competition actually get used to suppress it. The
> conclusion is not that you get rid of the capitalism but that you get
> rid of the political institutions.
But that is really a very unpersuasive style of argument. You are assuming
that somehow in the absence of X (political institutions) then Y
(capitalism) would run perfectly, without structural power differentials
causing some groups to be able to deny equal opportunity and liberty to
others. There is no reason to make that assumption, the best you can do is
develop an abstract economic theory which claims that if people are rational
then things SHOULD run that way.
This raises the question of how rationality is defined, what interests are,
etc. Socialists can make the same kind of abstract economic theory.
Furthermore, historically absence of rule of law and government has
generally meant that capitalism is less fair, and creates more structural
inequities. Before government grew to limit capitalism in Britain, or when
rule of law breaks down and Mafias start taking over. Often the way
capitalist libertarians try to get out of that evidence is to point to
existing, if ineffective, governmental institutions and blame them. One
gets the impression that as long as ANY government exists, it will be given
as the cause for why true capitalism doesn't lead to the best of all
possible outcomes. That is an argument assuming its conclusion, it's not
persuasive, especially given historical evidence which seems to suggest that
the most effective capitalist systems are mixed systems with strong rule of
law.
> As to the "structural power of wealth and money ... economically," part
> of the point of the argument for capitalism is that as long as people
> are limited to voluntary exchange, as opposed to the involuntary methods
> of politics, my wealth can "control" you only by offering you
> alternatives to those you would have without it. Hence economically,
> wealth is power in the sense that having wealth gives you opportunities,
> but usually not power in the sense of the ability to reduce the
> opportunities of others.
That doesn't deal with structure. Social structures constrain and empower.
They constrain in a variety of ways. For instance, everyone born in America
can theoretically grow up to be President, but not everyone can actually
accomplish that because each lifetime only has about 20 Presidents. That's
a basic structural constraint. Also, social relations affect the access to
education, opportunity, health care, proper nutrition, etc. I knew a kid in
college whose dad owned a company. The guy got C's all through, a very lazy
student. Now he's a millionaire running the company his dad started.
Structurally, he was born into a situation where he was able to get a good
material outcome with minimal effort, opportunities were skewed in his
favor. Someone born in a ghetto may be able, with heroic effort and an
ability to resist the temptation of inner city life, make it big. But
surely not someone as lazy as this kid was. Opportunity is not equal due to
how society is structured.
Since markets are not magic, and capitalists will try to circumvent markets
(since pure capitalism would led to minimal profits, and people want to
maximize profits), the early winners can use their gains to exert influence
and power and ultimately try to secure their position and that of their
family. This leads to the development of social classes, based on
structured relations. I don't see any reason not to expect this to happen
in any kind of capitalism, especially the most pure. Capitalism was, in my
opinion, SAVED by the state with its regulations.
cheers, scott
Scott Erb
Ron Allen wrote:
Social theory seems to end up being an agent-structure argument. Capitalism
and libertarianism seem to consider structure virtually irrelevant, with agent
choice being the sole cause of outcomes. Hard core socialism looks at
structure as determinant, with agent choice being shaped by structural
conditions. I suspect that the best way to look at this is to reject those
extremes and think about social reality as a social construction (relating to
work by scholars like Berger and Luckmann, 1967, and more recently in
International Relations theory by Alexander Wendt, also sociologists like
Anthony Giddens). Social constructionism or structuration theory.
cheers, scott
George Weinberg
<vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
>Social theory seems to end up being an agent-structure argument. Capitalism
>and libertarianism seem to consider structure virtually irrelevant, with agent
>choice being the sole cause of outcomes.
This isn't true at all, they just don't see it as something that has
to be "corrected". Everyone knows, for example, that having
the right parents is the easiest path to success in life. This is no
reason to outlaw doing anythimg that might help out
your kids.
> Hard core socialism looks at
>structure as determinant, with agent choice being shaped by structural
>conditions.
I don't think this is true either. Socialists seem to think that
achieving what they consider to be an equitable distribution of
resources is the goal. Why outcomes are what they are in a
market economy isn't considered particularly relevant.
That is, even if it could be proven that the rich tend to
be a lot smarter than the poor, I don't think many socialists
would consider that to be an argument against redistribution of
wealth.
>I suspect that the best way to look at this is to reject those
>extremes and think about social reality as a social construction (relating to
>work by scholars like Berger and Luckmann, 1967, and more recently in
>International Relations theory by Alexander Wendt, also sociologists like
>Anthony Giddens). Social constructionism or structuration theory.
>cheers, scott
>
The problem with "rejecting both extremes" is that sovereignty can
only fundamentally reside one place; claims of "shared sovereignty"
ignore that whover can decide which "jurisdiction" your in
is de facto sovereign about everything.
Fundamentally, either the individual has the right to say he's
not going to do a damn thing to help anyone else if he doesn't
want to, or "society" can demand the individual does
whatever they desire. There is no middle ground.
George
>
David Friedman
Scott Erb <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
> David Friedman wrote:
> > To defend a libertarian model of capitalism, you point out the political
> > power of wealth, and observe that it means that government interventions
> > justified as promoting competition actually get used to suppress it. The
> > conclusion is not that you get rid of the capitalism but that you get
> > rid of the political institutions.
>
> But that is really a very unpersuasive style of argument. You are assuming
> that somehow in the absence of X (political institutions) then Y
> (capitalism) would run perfectly, without structural power differentials
> causing some groups to be able to deny equal opportunity and liberty to
> others. There is no reason to make that assumption, the best you can do is
> develop an abstract economic theory which claims that if people are rational
> then things SHOULD run that way.
It isn't an assumption; it is a conclusion. It is indeed true that the
conclusion, like most of economics, depends on rationality--in the
economist's sense of the term. But then, in my view, rationality is
still the best assumption we have for predicting the behavior of large
numbers of strangers. You can find some arguments for that claim in the
first chapters of my _Price Theory_ and _Hidden Order_, and a discussion
of an alternative in the draft on evolutionary psychology and economics
on my web pate.
> This raises the question of how rationality is defined, what interests are,
> etc. Socialists can make the same kind of abstract economic theory.
I don't think so. There is a reason why the really smart socialist
economists, such as Lerner, ended up doing neoclassical price theory and
trying to use it to design a set of socialist institutions that would
mimic capitalism.
> > As to the "structural power of wealth and money ... economically," part
> > of the point of the argument for capitalism is that as long as people
> > are limited to voluntary exchange, as opposed to the involuntary methods
> > of politics, my wealth can "control" you only by offering you
> > alternatives to those you would have without it. Hence economically,
> > wealth is power in the sense that having wealth gives you opportunities,
> > but usually not power in the sense of the ability to reduce the
> > opportunities of others.
>
> That doesn't deal with structure. Social structures constrain and empower.
> They constrain in a variety of ways. For instance, everyone born in America
> can theoretically grow up to be President, but not everyone can actually
> accomplish that because each lifetime only has about 20 Presidents. That's
> a basic structural constraint. Also, social relations affect the access to
> education, opportunity, health care, proper nutrition, etc. I knew a kid in
> college whose dad owned a company. The guy got C's all through, a very lazy
> student. Now he's a millionaire running the company his dad started.
>
> Structurally, he was born into a situation where he was able to get a good
> material outcome with minimal effort, opportunities were skewed in his
> favor. Someone born in a ghetto may be able, with heroic effort and an
> ability to resist the temptation of inner city life, make it big. But
> surely not someone as lazy as this kid was. Opportunity is not equal due to
> how society is structured.
If you go back and look at what I said, you will find nothing about
equal opportunity. My point, simply stated, is that when that kid's
father made his fortune, he increased the opportunities for his son
(given that the father was willing to turn the company over to the son
eventually), but doing so didn't decrease opportunities for other
people. If the father had never started the business that made his
fortune, kids in the ghetto would have been just as badly off.
That's a first approximation, of course. In a particular case, it is
possible that the father's firm was competing with a firm that hired the
father of the ghetto kid, reducing his income. But then, it is also
possible that the father's firm hired the father of the ghetto kid,
increasing his income. In general, under a private property system,
people get wealthy by creating wealth, not by transferring it--hence
their wealth expands the opportunities for themselves and those they
give it to, but not at the expense of the opportunities of other people.
> Since markets are not magic, and capitalists will try to circumvent markets
> (since pure capitalism would led to minimal profits, and people want to
> maximize profits), the early winners can use their gains to exert influence
> and power and ultimately try to secure their position and that of their
> family. This leads to the development of social classes, based on
> structured relations. I don't see any reason not to expect this to happen
> in any kind of capitalism, especially the most pure. ...
The question is whether what you describe is easier in a market setting
or a political setting; I think the theory and evidence suggest the
latter.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Bert Clanton
<geor...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
> Fundamentally, either the individual has the right to say he's
> not going to do a damn thing to help anyone else if he doesn't
> want to, or "society" can demand the individual does
> whatever they desire. There is no middle ground.
>
So is a constitutionally governed mixed economy an impossibility? I
don't think so, since almost all other advanced industrial democracies
are instances of such a possibility. Such societies don't seem to
demand that the individual does whatever they desire. Instead, they
seem to be based at least to some degree on a *benevolent social
consensus* that we help other folks that need help. I grew up in a time
when American society was a lot more like this, and I hope I live to
see a return to that centrist norm. (Admittedly not centrist in terms
of today's badly skewed-to-the-right philosophy.)
Best wishes,
Bert
GroundZero
here's another one (misquote that is):
all decisions have to be passed by a simple majority in the case of (yadda,
something) and a 2/3 majority in the case of an (something else)
that was even worse I know!
Be Quiet, I order you to be quiet!
Order, who does he think he is!
Help, help I'm being repressed!
Bloody peasant!!
aww, did you hear that! what a giveaway
Jim Gillogly wrote in message <3ACF6FDA...@acm.org>...
Scott Erb
David Friedman wrote:
>
> The question is whether what you describe is easier in a market setting
> or a political setting; I think the theory and evidence suggest the
> latter.
One other bit to add to the response I sent a couple of minutes ago. These
questions are inherently a mix of politics and economics, a "pure" system of
either total markets or political planning is, I think, a road to disaster. To me
the best way is to figure out what kind of mix holds the abuse of power by those
in government and powerful non-governmental actors in check in order to try to
promote real liberty and opportunity for everyone. The complexity of this world
defies any black and white solution.
What that mix should be...that's a tough question!
Scott Erb
David Friedman wrote:
>
> > But that is really a very unpersuasive style of argument. You are assuming
> > that somehow in the absence of X (political institutions) then Y
> > (capitalism) would run perfectly, without structural power differentials
> > causing some groups to be able to deny equal opportunity and liberty to
> > others. There is no reason to make that assumption, the best you can do is
> > develop an abstract economic theory which claims that if people are rational
> > then things SHOULD run that way.
> It isn't an assumption; it is a conclusion. It is indeed true that the
> conclusion, like most of economics, depends on rationality--in the
> economist's sense of the term. But then, in my view, rationality is
> still the best assumption we have for predicting the behavior of large
> numbers of strangers. You can find some arguments for that claim in the
> first chapters of my _Price Theory_ and _Hidden Order_, and a discussion
> of an alternative in the draft on evolutionary psychology and economics
> on my web pate.
There are a number of problems with assuming rationality. First,
rationality is simply trying to choose the means that will maximize
expected utility. Utility is subjective, and depends on individual
tastes and preferences. However, even the calculation of the means
which maximizes that utility is subjective.
An individual with ethics will find utility in choosing a legal or
ethical path to achieve goals, meaning he or she will choose a different
set of actions than someone who is unethical or totally focused on
personal gain. Second, rationality assumptions often have built within
them an assumption of perfect or at least near-perfect information.
Lack of information is constant, especially in today's complex and
multi-causal dynamic (turbulent) system. This makes expected utility
calculations not only imperfect, but sometimes little more than guesses
and hunches. Finally, most rationality assumptions have built within in
them the idea that the individual can know the set of possible actions
and choose between them, rather than satisficing or choosing between a
set of actions that contain sub-optimal outcomes.
In short, reality is really messy, and assumptions that create a
theoretical expectation that things should work out "right" almost
always fall apart in the real world.
> > This raises the question of how rationality is defined, what interests are,
> > etc. Socialists can make the same kind of abstract economic theory.
>
> I don't think so. There is a reason why the really smart socialist
> economists, such as Lerner, ended up doing neoclassical price theory and
> trying to use it to design a set of socialist institutions that would
> mimic capitalism.
You're switching topics here. I'm not attacking markets. I believe
that market mechanics is the best way to communicate demand and create
flexibility in the system. It certainly is much better than a planned
economy. I'm noting only that it is not a perfect way, and relying
purely on markets as if they were magic is not a solution to the issue
of stopping abuses of liberty on the one hand, or creating a situation
of equal opportunity on the other.
There is where I disagree. The system is complex and interdependent
(indeed, markets work to the extent they do -- which is pretty well --
because of that interdependence). That means that exchanges overtime
benefit some people who turn it into a structural advantage (they put
their families in a position to be 'winners' in collecting material
goods and having the best jobs and opportunities) while others get
locked into structural disadvantage. This is an outcome of the system,
the creation of social classes, which involves real structural power,
even if it is diffuse and not tracable to any given person's actions
(due to the complexity and dynamism of the system). The impact can be
seen, both in global politics and domestic.
>If the father had never started the business that made his
> fortune, kids in the ghetto would have been just as badly off.
Any one person's change probably wouldn't alter the structure much,
structures are built on millions of relationships and how they empower
and constrain. But overall, the children of each parent are born into
structured relationships which give them opportunities and constraints.
The inequality of these is an outgrowth of how the system has functioned
up until that point.
> That's a first approximation, of course. In a particular case, it is
> possible that the father's firm was competing with a firm that hired the
> father of the ghetto kid, reducing his income. But then, it is also
> possible that the father's firm hired the father of the ghetto kid,
> increasing his income. In general, under a private property system,
> people get wealthy by creating wealth, not by transferring it--hence
> their wealth expands the opportunities for themselves and those they
> give it to, but not at the expense of the opportunities of other people.
I think you're overlooking how linked the system is (indeed, it MUST be,
for markets to function), and how the complexity and dynamism of a
capitalist economy make it so these structures emerge out of a myriad of
small decisions (such as in the tyranny of small decisions) and not
tracable on a simple linear line from one person's acts to another.
That is the essence of structural approaches. The rich are rich not
just because of their own efforts, but because of the way the system is
structured. And once they get their wealth, they can use it to build in
long term advantages for their family and friends. This leads to the
creation of social classes which aren't solid or deterministic, but have
real force in terms of constraint and empowerment.
> > Since markets are not magic, and capitalists will try to circumvent markets
> > (since pure capitalism would led to minimal profits, and people want to
> > maximize profits), the early winners can use their gains to exert influence
> > and power and ultimately try to secure their position and that of their
> > family. This leads to the development of social classes, based on
> > structured relations. I don't see any reason not to expect this to happen
> > in any kind of capitalism, especially the most pure. ...
>
> The question is whether what you describe is easier in a market setting
> or a political setting; I think the theory and evidence suggest the
> latter.
I have not seen evidence in comparing real world systems which suggest
that. The evidence I see tends to be abstract theory with all the
simplifying assumptions of rationality, near perfect information,
knowledge of possible choices and their impact, and a glossing over of
the subjective nature of interest/preference setting and how utility is
calculated by even rational agents making choices on what to do to
maximize expected utility. But in comparing real world systems, those
theories seem not to be of a lot of use, at least not as a whole system
model of how things can be done.
cheers, scott
Scott Erb
George Weinberg wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 22:53:21 GMT, Scott Erb
> <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >Social theory seems to end up being an agent-structure argument. Capitalism
> >and libertarianism seem to consider structure virtually irrelevant, with agent
> >choice being the sole cause of outcomes.
>
> This isn't true at all, they just don't see it as something that has
> to be "corrected". Everyone knows, for example, that having
> the right parents is the easiest path to success in life. This is no
> reason to outlaw doing anythimg that might help out
> your kids.
Of course not. But it is an example of how social structures develop to empower
some and constrain others, ultimately, when repeated and reinforced, leading to
social classes with vastly unequal opportunity and high power differentials. It is
a myth to think the rich are rich because they deserve to be, and the poor are poor
from their own doings alone.
> > Hard core socialism looks at
> >structure as determinant, with agent choice being shaped by structural
> >conditions.
>
> I don't think this is true either. Socialists seem to think that
> achieving what they consider to be an equitable distribution of
> resources is the goal. Why outcomes are what they are in a
> market economy isn't considered particularly relevant.
It varies, but in Communist planned economies the view was that equal outcomes and
thus equal opportunity was a goal imposed and enforced by government. Not only
didn't this work, but it achieved outcomes far worse than what happens under mixed
market systems. Ultimately, those systems collapsed. I think a focus on equal
outcomes is misguided: equal outcomes for equal talent and effort is perhaps a
goal, but variations in talent and effort can lead to different outcomes for
different people.
> That is, even if it could be proven that the rich tend to
> be a lot smarter than the poor, I don't think many socialists
> would consider that to be an argument against redistribution of
> wealth.
I don't think the intelligent have a natural right to claim so much wealth that
they deny equal opportunity and liberty for the poor. I don't think this gives
them license to exploit the "less intelligent." However, the problem with social
structures is that once class structures are created, they empower and constrain
with little regard for effort or intelligence. Intelligent people born in ghettos
often don't get the equality schooling, have a social system that promotes
ambition, and the most intelligent might see drug selling as the best way to
success.
> >I suspect that the best way to look at this is to reject those
> >extremes and think about social reality as a social construction (relating to
> >work by scholars like Berger and Luckmann, 1967, and more recently in
> >International Relations theory by Alexander Wendt, also sociologists like
> >Anthony Giddens). Social constructionism or structuration theory.
> >cheers, scott
> >
>
> The problem with "rejecting both extremes" is that sovereignty can
> only fundamentally reside one place; claims of "shared sovereignty"
> ignore that whover can decide which "jurisdiction" your in
> is de facto sovereign about everything.
I don't see how sovereignty comes in here, but there are many examples of shared
sovereignty, or sovereignty being legal along side practical sacrifices of 'pieces'
of sovereignty (such as the EU's subsidiarity.) Sovereignty is the main principle
of the international system and was a construct that emerged from the 1648 Treaty
of Westphalia (and was used by Gramsci in regard to international politics in his
1625 writings).
> Fundamentally, either the individual has the right to say he's
> not going to do a damn thing to help anyone else if he doesn't
> want to, or "society" can demand the individual does
> whatever they desire. There is no middle ground.
The whole world attests to the opposite. We are individuals and we are inherently
members of a society. We have no real identity, position, culture or tradition
outside of the social webs into which we are born and in which we become
co-constructors of that society. Not only is there middle ground, but the reality
is each extreme (all is society, or it's only individuals) is impossible.
cheers, scott
George Weinberg
wrote:
>In article <3acf9c9...@news.speakeasy.net>, George Weinberg
><geor...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Fundamentally, either the individual has the right to say he's
>> not going to do a damn thing to help anyone else if he doesn't
>> want to, or "society" can demand the individual does
>> whatever they desire. There is no middle ground.
>>
>
>So is a constitutionally governed mixed economy an impossibility? I
>don't think so, since almost all other advanced industrial democracies
>are instances of such a possibility.
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. These days,
even "communist" countries understand that the
free market is the golden goose, and that you really don't
want to kill the golden goose, although you migt want
to beat it up every now and then just to show it who
is boss.
>Such societies don't seem to
>demand that the individual does whatever they desire. Instead, they
>seem to be based at least to some degree on a *benevolent social
>consensus* that we help other folks that need help. >
Actually, here and everywhere else, the nature of the
political process is such that the amount of government handouts
you can get really isn't that closely tied to "need".
But this isn't my point. Either the government can arbitrarily
take away everything you have, or it can't. Right now,
according to their own rules, I think every government in
the world can, although as I said they have given up
their attempts to actually do so.
>I grew up in a time
>when American society was a lot more like this, and I hope I live to
>see a return to that centrist norm. (Admittedly not centrist in terms
>of today's badly skewed-to-the-right philosophy.)
>
>Best wishes,
>Bert
George
George Weinberg
<vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>George Weinberg wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 22:53:21 GMT, Scott Erb
>> <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Social theory seems to end up being an agent-structure argument. Capitalism
>> >and libertarianism seem to consider structure virtually irrelevant, with agent
>> >choice being the sole cause of outcomes.
>>
>> This isn't true at all, they just don't see it as something that has
>> to be "corrected". Everyone knows, for example, that having
>> the right parents is the easiest path to success in life. This is no
>> reason to outlaw doing anythimg that might help out
>> your kids.
>
>Of course not. But it is an example of how social structures develop to empower
>some and constrain others, ultimately, when repeated and reinforced, leading to
>social classes with vastly unequal opportunity and high power differentials. It is
>a myth to think the rich are rich because they deserve to be, and the poor are poor
>from their own doings alone.
>
My point was that nobody claims this.
What capitalists will claim is that the opporunities
even poor and uneducated people have in a free market economy are
vastly greater than what anyone except the oligarchs have
in the second or third worlds.
>> > Hard core socialism looks at
>> >structure as determinant, with agent choice being shaped by structural
>> >conditions.
>>
>> I don't think this is true either. Socialists seem to think that
>> achieving what they consider to be an equitable distribution of
>> resources is the goal. Why outcomes are what they are in a
>> market economy isn't considered particularly relevant.
>
>It varies, but in Communist planned economies the view was that equal outcomes and
>thus equal opportunity was a goal imposed and enforced by government.
As I said, I think "opportunity" didn't enter into it.
> Not only
>didn't this work, but it achieved outcomes far worse than what happens under mixed
>market systems. Ultimately, those systems collapsed. I think a focus on equal
>outcomes is misguided: equal outcomes for equal talent and effort is perhaps a
>goal, but variations in talent and effort can lead to different outcomes for
>different people.
>
It may be "a goal", but it's no one's goal. Need based distribution
means distributing on the basis of (peceived) need, not
based on redressing real or imagined historical injustices.
>> That is, even if it could be proven that the rich tend to
>> be a lot smarter than the poor, I don't think many socialists
>> would consider that to be an argument against redistribution of
>> wealth.
>
>I don't think the intelligent have a natural right to claim so much wealth that
>they deny equal opportunity and liberty for the poor. I don't think this gives
>them license to exploit the "less intelligent."
I'm not sure what you mean by "exploit". If you mean
"pay them less per hour", we'll have to agree to disagree.
I'm not sure what you mean by "so much wealth that they
deny equal opportunity". Obviously if we have different
amounts of wealth, we have different opportunities.
> However, the problem with social
>structures is that once class structures are created, they empower and constrain
>with little regard for effort or intelligence. Intelligent people born in ghettos
>often don't get the equality schooling, have a social system that promotes
>ambition, and the most intelligent might see drug selling as the best way to
>success.
>
Maybe it is, it's where "America's Royal Family" got their wealth.
But that's not really the point. In this country you've got millions
of people who come here with no education, not even the
ability to speak English well (or in some cases ast all),
in many cases they don't even have the protection of the law
(if they're here illegally), and they not only make what they
consider a decent life for themselves, they're sending money
"home" to support families they don't even see for months or
even years at a time. Opportunities are here for those who seek them.
What traps people (and, more importantly, families), in poverty is
not their lack of education; that can be overcome. What really traps
people are "aid" programs that couldn't be more effective at
keeping people dependent on them if that's what they were designed to
do.
>> >I suspect that the best way to look at this is to reject those
>> >extremes and think about social reality as a social construction (relating to
>> >work by scholars like Berger and Luckmann, 1967, and more recently in
>> >International Relations theory by Alexander Wendt, also sociologists like
>> >Anthony Giddens). Social constructionism or structuration theory.
>> >cheers, scott
>> >
>>
>> The problem with "rejecting both extremes" is that sovereignty can
>> only fundamentally reside one place; claims of "shared sovereignty"
>> ignore that whover can decide which "jurisdiction" your in
>> is de facto sovereign about everything.
>
>I don't see how sovereignty comes in here, but there are many examples of shared
>sovereignty, or sovereignty being legal along side practical sacrifices of 'pieces'
>of sovereignty (such as the EU's subsidiarity.)
The EU isn't that different from what the USA used to be. I don't
think it'll take anything like 4 score and seven years before a
country wants out. It'll be interesting to see what happens then.
>> Fundamentally, either the individual has the right to say he's
>> not going to do a damn thing to help anyone else if he doesn't
>> want to, or "society" can demand the individual does
>> whatever they desire. There is no middle ground.
>
>The whole world attests to the opposite. We are individuals and we are inherently
>members of a society. We have no real identity, position, culture or tradition
>outside of the social webs into which we are born and in which we become
>co-constructors of that society. Not only is there middle ground, but the reality
>is each extreme (all is society, or it's only individuals) is impossible.
>cheers, scott
>
>
You're misreading me. Let me try to clarify. Imagine that there
is something I'll call a "right", which I won't try to define, but
I'll give an example; if I have a "right" to my own religion,
which I'll pretend is Falun Gong, then even if the vast majority
in my society object to it as a "crazy cult", they can't ban it.
The key concept of an individual right is that it cannot be
overruled by soiciety.
Now let's skip asking what "rights" if any a person might have and
skip to the metaquestion, who decides what right if any a person
might have. If "society" decides, then of course there are no rights
at all, since society can always decide "that isn't a right".
Conversely, if an individual can define his own rights,
he could easily assert "I have the right to do whatever I want,
whenever I want".
Most of the time this kind of philosophical question is a moot point,
bacuse nobody insists on forcing you to do something you really don't
want to (so whether or not they "could" is irrelevant), and most
people don't insist on doing things that are clearly destructive to
those around them. This mootness is what makes civilization possible.
But every now and then it's not a moot point. Every now and then
there just isn't any room for compromise. And when that happens,
soemone "wins" and someone "loses".
George
George Weinberg
wrote:
I think you're making the same objection more than once, but
that's not really important. The idea that people could ever
make what are truly "optimal" decisions to bring about their own
happiness all the time is IMO an unrealizable fantasy. The idea that
some other party could be given authority to overrule an individual's
personal decisions but could be trusted to do so only when it is in
that individuals real best interests is beyond fantasy; people don't
even suggest it if you put it in those words.
>You're switching topics here. I'm not attacking markets. I believe
>that market mechanics is the best way to communicate demand and create
>flexibility in the system. It certainly is much better than a planned
>economy. I'm noting only that it is not a perfect way, and relying
>purely on markets as if they were magic is not a solution to the issue
>of stopping abuses of liberty on the one hand, or creating a situation
>of equal opportunity on the other.
>
Creating "equality" of opportunity isn't even a goal. The "right" to
read what you want doesn't do you much good if you're illiterate,
and the fact that you have access to a good library doesn't
become worthless because someone else has access to
a better one.
Attempts to "equalize" opportunities result in taking a lawnmower
to them and reducing everyone's opportunities to the lowest level.
>>If the father had never started the business that made his
>> fortune, kids in the ghetto would have been just as badly off.
>
>Any one person's change probably wouldn't alter the structure much,
>structures are built on millions of relationships and how they empower
>and constrain. But overall, the children of each parent are born into
>structured relationships which give them opportunities and constraints.
>The inequality of these is an outgrowth of how the system has functioned
>up until that point.
>
I think in Englsih this means, "the poor don't get poorer because
of the actions of the rich, but they sure seem a lot poorer
when you compare them to the rich".
It's true, but it's not relevant if your goal is to increase
people's opportunities (rather than make them more
nearly "equal").
>> > Since markets are not magic, and capitalists will try to circumvent markets
>> > (since pure capitalism would led to minimal profits, and people want to
>> > maximize profits), the early winners can use their gains to exert influence
>> > and power and ultimately try to secure their position and that of their
>> > family. This leads to the development of social classes, based on
>> > structured relations. I don't see any reason not to expect this to happen
>> > in any kind of capitalism, especially the most pure. ...
>>
>> The question is whether what you describe is easier in a market setting
>> or a political setting; I think the theory and evidence suggest the
>> latter.
>
>I have not seen evidence in comparing real world systems which suggest
>that.
You're kidding, right? It's possible, for example, that nobody has
ever written a paper discussing whether the emergence of a
merchant class represented an increase in class mobility over
pure feudalism, but only because the answer is so
obvious you'd look like a total idiot for even asking such
a question.
And that is what you're comparing: the ability to
inherit wealth and possibly connections vs. the ability
to inherit actual titles, seats in the legislature,
etc.
> The evidence I see tends to be abstract theory with all the
>simplifying assumptions of rationality, near perfect information,
>knowledge of possible choices and their impact, and a glossing over of
>the subjective nature of interest/preference setting and how utility is
>calculated by even rational agents making choices on what to do to
>maximize expected utility. But in comparing real world systems, those
>theories seem not to be of a lot of use, at least not as a whole system
>model of how things can be done.
>cheers, scott
Have you ever checked into how real-world communist countries
operated? Not only was having the right family connections pretty
much the ONLY way to a successful career, but you could
find yourself virtually banished for having the wrong name, even if
you weren't actually related to the villianous "unperson".
That's what happens with political control of the economy.
George
David Friedman
Scott Erb <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
> It is
> a myth to think the rich are rich because they deserve to be, and the poor
> are poor from their own doings alone.
And a myth that nobody I have ever met, so far as I know, believes in.
There are lots of people, myself included, who believe there is some
positive relation between income and desert, but I don't think anyone
believes that wealth is entirely determined by desert, so I'm not sure
what the point is of attacking that position.
> It varies, but in Communist planned economies the view was that equal
> outcomes and
> thus equal opportunity was a goal imposed and enforced by government. Not
> only
> didn't this work, but it achieved outcomes far worse than what happens under
> mixed
> market systems.
I think you have to distinguish between official ideology and the
beliefs that actually drove most people in the system. My not very
expert impression is that the Soviet Union was in fact a very unequal
system, with far more class privilege (for example special stores
restricted to the nomenklatura) than in capitalist societies. If so, it
is unclear whether you should blame the collapse on the theoretical
egalitarianism or the real inegalitarianism (or other things).
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Scott Erb
George Weinberg wrote:
As I put it much earlier in this thread, the only time people have a right
individually or collectively to stop someone from acting in their interest is if that
action in some way amounts to an abuse of power or a threat to the liberty of
others. Obviously, no one will say that people should all be able to do whatever
they want to do to whomever they want. As for structural power, that requires in the
short term a kind of progressive taxation and creation of mechanisms to assure the
"losers" and their offspring have equal opportunity. Optimally that requires a kind
of "social solidarity" that social democrats strive for, it can only be done if the
people accept the legitimacy of such actions, which is why Social Democrats believe
in strong democracy (and some anarcho-socialists believe this has to be a chosen
solidarity by all, and believe it can be).
> >You're switching topics here. I'm not attacking markets. I believe
> >that market mechanics is the best way to communicate demand and create
> >flexibility in the system. It certainly is much better than a planned
> >economy. I'm noting only that it is not a perfect way, and relying
> >purely on markets as if they were magic is not a solution to the issue
> >of stopping abuses of liberty on the one hand, or creating a situation
> >of equal opportunity on the other.
> >
>
> Creating "equality" of opportunity isn't even a goal.
For whom? It is a goal for me, because I see it as necessary to bring about true
liberty for all.
> The "right" to
> read what you want doesn't do you much good if you're illiterate,
> and the fact that you have access to a good library doesn't
> become worthless because someone else has access to
> a better one.
>
> Attempts to "equalize" opportunities result in taking a lawnmower
> to them and reducing everyone's opportunities to the lowest level.
No, quite the opposite. It improves society when more people can read, more people
have the tools for success, a good education, and a solid background. I see no way
you can defend your claim there.
> I think in Englsih this means, "the poor don't get poorer because
> of the actions of the rich, but they sure seem a lot poorer
> when you compare them to the rich".
>
> It's true, but it's not relevant if your goal is to increase
> people's opportunities (rather than make them more
> nearly "equal").
The goal is to counter the results of structural power differentials, and prevent
abuse of power by various actors (both governmental and non-governmental).
>
> >> The question is whether what you describe is easier in a market setting
> >> or a political setting; I think the theory and evidence suggest the
> >> latter.
> >
> >I have not seen evidence in comparing real world systems which suggest
> >that.
>
> You're kidding, right? It's possible, for example, that nobody has
> ever written a paper discussing whether the emergence of a
> merchant class represented an increase in class mobility over
> pure feudalism, but only because the answer is so
> obvious you'd look like a total idiot for even asking such
> a question.
You're changing the subject. I see no evidence that a pure market setting devoid of
politics is POSSIBLE, or that you can speak of market mechanisms outside politics.
In real world situations the most successful systems work because of political
institutions (rule of law) and social agreement on various values (e.g. social
welfare, defense, rules of the game, etc.)
> And that is what you're comparing: the ability to
> inherit wealth and possibly connections vs. the ability
> to inherit actual titles, seats in the legislature,
> etc.
>
> > The evidence I see tends to be abstract theory with all the
> >simplifying assumptions of rationality, near perfect information,
> >knowledge of possible choices and their impact, and a glossing over of
> >the subjective nature of interest/preference setting and how utility is
> >calculated by even rational agents making choices on what to do to
> >maximize expected utility. But in comparing real world systems, those
> >theories seem not to be of a lot of use, at least not as a whole system
> >model of how things can be done.
> >cheers, scott
>
> Have you ever checked into how real-world communist countries
> operated?
Yes, quite extensively.
> Not only was having the right family connections pretty
> much the ONLY way to a successful career, but you could
> find yourself virtually banished for having the wrong name, even if
> you weren't actually related to the villianous "unperson".
I haven't run into that, but I'm certainly never going to defend the Communist way of
doing things. My point is precisely that both extremes -- either pure market or pure
government -- each lead to problems. How to avoid that and develop a stable
political system that maximizes true, effective liberty requires a mix of politics
and markets, markets certainly cannot do it alone.
>That's what happens with political control of the economy.
You're making an error of assuming one extreme or the other. Neither extreme is
good, and pointing out the errors of one extreme doesn't mean praise for the other
extreme.
-scott
David Friedman
Scott Erb <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
> David Friedman wrote:
> > It is indeed true that the
> > conclusion, like most of economics, depends on rationality--in the
> > economist's sense of the term. But then, in my view, rationality is
> > still the best assumption we have for predicting the behavior of large
> > numbers of strangers. You can find some arguments for that claim in the
> > first chapters of my _Price Theory_ and _Hidden Order_, and a discussion
> > of an alternative in the draft on evolutionary psychology and economics
> > on my web pate.
>
> There are a number of problems with assuming rationality. ...
> In short, reality is really messy, and assumptions that create a
> theoretical expectation that things should work out "right" almost
> always fall apart in the real world.
We have to work on the best theory we have. I agree that the relevant
(economic) theory is far from perfect, but we don't have anything
better. That is one of the reasons I am a conservative anarchist; I
think the sensible policy is to move gradually towards what you think is
the ideal society, revising your views on the subject as additional data
come in.
And I don't argue that things will always work out right. If you look at
the chapter on economics and efficient law that is webbed on my page,
you will find a discussion of (among other things) market failure in the
market for legal assent--i.e. reasons why the best set of legal
institutions I can think of will still sometimes produce bad law. That
isn't an adequate reason to reject them, given that I think the
alternatives will produce worse law.
> > > This raises the question of how rationality is defined, what interests
> > > are,
> > > etc. Socialists can make the same kind of abstract economic theory.
> > I don't think so. There is a reason why the really smart socialist
> > economists, such as Lerner, ended up doing neoclassical price theory and
> > trying to use it to design a set of socialist institutions that would
> > mimic capitalism.
> You're switching topics here. I'm not attacking markets. I believe
> that market mechanics is the best way to communicate demand and create
> flexibility in the system. It certainly is much better than a planned
> economy. I'm noting only that it is not a perfect way, and relying
> purely on markets as if they were magic is not a solution to the issue
> of stopping abuses of liberty on the one hand, or creating a situation
> of equal opportunity on the other.
I'm not switching topics, and I'm not talking about the virtues of
markets. I'm talking about the virtues of neoclassical economics. My
point is that the socialists don't have "the same kind of abstract
economic theory"--i.e. don't have a theoretical structure of comparable
sophistication and consistency. My evidence is that the smart socialist
economists chose to follow Marshall, not Marx.
> >If the father had never started the business that made his
> > fortune, kids in the ghetto would have been just as badly off.
> Any one person's change probably wouldn't alter the structure much,
> structures are built on millions of relationships and how they empower
> and constrain. But overall, the children of each parent are born into
> structured relationships which give them opportunities and constraints.
> The inequality of these is an outgrowth of how the system has functioned
> up until that point.
But that doesn't tell us the sign of the relationships--whether one
person's change makes things a little worse for another, or a little
better. My point wasn't that the father who made a fortune only made the
ghetto child a little worse off, it was that there was no reason to
think he made him worse off at all. Indeed, there is some reason to
think he made the ghetto child a little better off, although that wasn't
the point I was making.
Is your concern with how equal opportunities are or how good
opportunities are? My claim is that the father who makes a fortune may
make the opportunities to his son and the ghetto child less equal (by
improving the opportunities of the former) but he doesn't, typically,
make the opportunities of the ghetto child worse.
It isn't clear whether you are disagreeing with that claim--in which
case you need more than lots of verbiage about structured relationships
to answer my argument, which comes down to straightforward economics--or
whether you agree with my claim, but consider increased inequality in
itself objectionable, even if it consists entirely of making things
better for some people without making them worse for others. Which is
your position?
> I think you're overlooking how linked the system is (indeed, it MUST be,
> for markets to function), and how the complexity and dynamism of a
> capitalist economy make it so these structures emerge out of a myriad of
> small decisions (such as in the tyranny of small decisions) and not
> tracable on a simple linear line from one person's acts to another.
Neoclassical economics is a theory of how linked the system is, and how
patterns emerge out of a myriad of small decisions. What is your
competing theory, and how does it show that the net effect of A making a
fortune on the market is to make all B-Z a little worse off?
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
Scott Erb <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
I disagree in part and agree in part.
"The complexity of this world defies any black and white solution"
translates as "there are no corner solutions," which we know is false.
There are lots of people who are alive, lots of people who are dead, and
very few people who are in between--although the human organism is a
very complicated system. Lots of places where no water is liquid. Add
examples for yourself.
Or, to take a closer example, isn't "murder is illegal" a black and
white solution? If you think through the arguments, some victims are
worse people than others, some reasons for murder are better than
others. Does it follow that in a sensible legal system, murder is a
crime only part of the time? Of course, you can reply that some killing
isn't murder and isn't illegal--but that still leaves a large and fairly
well defined set of acts, all of which are against the law.
What is true is that the line between voluntary and coercive acts is
less sharp than most people, including most libertarians, believe. Hence
if we define the market as the voluntary system and the political as the
involuntary, even the purest market has some "political" element. The
clearest example is what happens when individuals disagree either about
the facts of a dispute or the underlying principles, and the
disagreement is ultimately resolved by force or the threat of force.
Well constructed institutions can push the force very far into the
background, but the threat is still there, whether under a system like
ours or a pure anarcho-capitalist system.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
Scott Erb <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
> As I put it much earlier in this thread, the only time people have a right
> individually or collectively to stop someone from acting in their interest is
> if that
> action in some way amounts to an abuse of power or a threat to the liberty of
> others.
So far, so good--although "abuse of power" is a bit unclear. If I have
earned money without in the process violating anyone's rights, is it an
"abuse of power" for me to spend the money on giving myself things that
other people don't have--a bigger house, say?
> Obviously, no one will say that people should all be able to do
> whatever
> they want to do to whomever they want. As for structural power, that
> requires in the
> short term a kind of progressive taxation and creation of mechanisms to
> assure the
> "losers" and their offspring have equal opportunity.
This appears inconsistent with your previous statement. If you don't
have a right collectively to stop someone from acting in his interest,
then you don't have a right to take away his property--which is what
taxation, progressive or otherwise, does.
> > Creating "equality" of opportunity isn't even a goal.
>
> For whom? It is a goal for me, because I see it as necessary to bring about
> trueliberty for all.
Could you explain that?
We have a society where some people have level of opportunity 10, some
15, however defined. Are you saying that if we reduce the latter to 10
we have brought about more true liberty for all?
> No, quite the opposite. It improves society when more people can read, more
> people
> have the tools for success, a good education, and a solid background.
But since government involvement in schooling children has the opposite
consequences, that's an argument against it not for it.
> In real world situations the most successful systems work because of
> political
> institutions (rule of law) and social agreement on various values (e.g.
> social
> welfare, defense, rules of the game, etc.)
But a lot of legal institutions and rules of the game are created and
enforced outside of government. So why do you assume they can't all be?
Are you familiar with the sort of anarcho-capitalist legal system that I
proposed in _Machinery of Freedom_ or with Bruce Benson's work on
historical systems of private law?
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Scott Erb
David Friedman wrote:
> > One other bit to add to the response I sent a couple of minutes ago. These
> > questions are inherently a mix of politics and economics, a "pure" system of
> > either total markets or political planning is, I think, a road to disaster.
> > To me
> > the best way is to figure out what kind of mix holds the abuse of power by
> > those
> > in government and powerful non-governmental actors in check in order to try
> > to
> > promote real liberty and opportunity for everyone. The complexity of this
> > world
> > defies any black and white solution.
> >
> > What that mix should be...that's a tough question!
>
> I disagree in part and agree in part.
>
> "The complexity of this world defies any black and white solution"
> translates as "there are no corner solutions," which we know is false.
> There are lots of people who are alive, lots of people who are dead, and
> very few people who are in between--although the human organism is a
> very complicated system. Lots of places where no water is liquid. Add
> examples for yourself.
But, of course, those are very different sorts of questions than the kind of
complex political, ethical and sociological questions involved in issues of what
kind of political or economic system would be best.
> Or, to take a closer example, isn't "murder is illegal" a black and
> white solution?
No. Murder -- the killing of another human -- is illegal in particular
circumstances. It is condoned in others. Some say abortion is legal murder.
Certainly in wars you kill other humans legally. And there are questions of what
consitutes legitimate self defense, etc. Murder itself is a contestable concept,
one that needs to be defined within a social context. And that is a very basic
issue, much easier than the complex issues involving social and political systems.
> If you think through the arguments, some victims are
> worse people than others, some reasons for murder are better than
> others. Does it follow that in a sensible legal system, murder is a
> crime only part of the time?
That is the system we have. Of course, one can weasel out of that by
tautologically defining murder as "unjustified" killing and then defining away all
allowed killing by rationalizing it as justified. But that's pretty lame.
> Of course, you can reply that some killing
> isn't murder and isn't illegal--but that still leaves a large and fairly
> well defined set of acts, all of which are against the law.
They are against the law, sure. But see what you are doing -- you're looking to a
specific social norm and its acceptance as somehow being an argument against the
claim that economic and social reality is complex, dynamic and defies no easy
solution. In other words, you're ignoring the issue at hand and trying to argue
that you can have an easy solution because in other more precisely defined cases
an easy solution appears possible. It's like taking the correct claim that the
causes of war are multidimensional, and can be economic, cultural, political,
psychological, and often are a mix with no clear one cause of war, and rejecting
that claim because in science we can run experiments and show that there is one
cause for a particular chemical reaction. The analogy doesn't fit.
> What is true is that the line between voluntary and coercive acts is
> less sharp than most people, including most libertarians, believe. Hence
> if we define the market as the voluntary system and the political as the
> involuntary, even the purest market has some "political" element.
Both market and politics is a mix of voluntary and involuntary. Neither is pure
anything.
> The
> clearest example is what happens when individuals disagree either about
> the facts of a dispute or the underlying principles, and the
> disagreement is ultimately resolved by force or the threat of force.
> Well constructed institutions can push the force very far into the
> background, but the threat is still there, whether under a system like
> ours or a pure anarcho-capitalist system.
That's why to me the issue is power -- who has it, and how to hold the use of
power accountable. To do that it must be visible first -- that means you have to
see what powerful actors are doing, there must be openness, and second, there must
be some kind of political oversight. Markets are part of that, but can't do it
alone.
Scott Erb
David Friedman wrote:
> In article <3AD0B2A2...@mail.verizon.net>,
> Scott Erb <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > As I put it much earlier in this thread, the only time people have a right
> > individually or collectively to stop someone from acting in their interest is
> > if that
> > action in some way amounts to an abuse of power or a threat to the liberty of
> > others.
>
> So far, so good--although "abuse of power" is a bit unclear. If I have
> earned money without in the process violating anyone's rights, is it an
> "abuse of power" for me to spend the money on giving myself things that
> other people don't have--a bigger house, say?
That's where structural power comes in. You can not directly violate people's
rights, but yet set up a system structured so that you become part of a class that
is privileged, while others are constrained. In the complex myriad of social
relations this is sometimes a stealth development, one you see in outcomes, even if
processes appear to be purely voluntary. That is because no act is PURELY
voluntary. There are always constraining contextual factors. Always. And if the
context shaped by culture makes certain choices necessary, one voluntarily chooses
the best possible option, even if the options are themselves unfairly constrained.
It's like the Godfather making "an offer you can't refuse."
> > Obviously, no one will say that people should all be able to do
> > whatever
> > they want to do to whomever they want. As for structural power, that
> > requires in the
> > short term a kind of progressive taxation and creation of mechanisms to
> > assure the
> > "losers" and their offspring have equal opportunity.
>
> This appears inconsistent with your previous statement. If you don't
> have a right collectively to stop someone from acting in his interest,
> then you don't have a right to take away his property--which is what
> taxation, progressive or otherwise, does.
It has to be a power exercised only with oversight, fairness, and societal
agreement (some kind of democratic choice). To me the goal must be to counter act
structural power differentials and promote equal opportunity, and not simply try to
equalize outcomes. I think the Left has too often focused on the latter over the
former.
> > > Creating "equality" of opportunity isn't even a goal.
> >
> > For whom? It is a goal for me, because I see it as necessary to bring about
> > trueliberty for all.
>
> Could you explain that?
Without equal opportunity, there is no real freedom for those lacking the
opportunities that others have. They are structurally constrained from having the
full range of choices and possibilities others have. They can "legally" choose
what they want, but the context prevents some options from being possible, and
pushes them to HAVE TO choose other things. In short, inequal opportunity is lack
of freedom for those with less.
> We have a society where some people have level of opportunity 10, some
> 15, however defined. Are you saying that if we reduce the latter to 10
> we have brought about more true liberty for all?
Who said it would be a reduction? If equal opportunity is 15, and some have 20-25,
and others have 5-10, trying to bring everyone to a place near 15 would be proper.
Ultimately, I don't think you'd ever equalize opportunity completely, because the
powerful will hold the upper hand. But if you get it closer, then there is more
chance those structurally constrained will have a chance to exercise their full
potential as humans.
> No, quite the opposite. It improves society when more people can read, more
> > people
> > have the tools for success, a good education, and a solid background.
>
> But since government involvement in schooling children has the opposite
> consequences, that's an argument against it not for it.
Government involvement in schooling has world wide increased literacy
dramatically. Not only that, but the best education systems (in terms of results)
come from systems with strict governmental control, in Japan, Europe and
elsewhere. The US, which is decentralized to localities with more private
involvement, has had worse outcomes. Even communist systems had excellent results
in education. Soooo...I don't see how you can at all justify the claim you make
there.
> > In real world situations the most successful systems work because of
> > political
> > institutions (rule of law) and social agreement on various values (e.g.
> > social
> > welfare, defense, rules of the game, etc.)
>
> But a lot of legal institutions and rules of the game are created and
> enforced outside of government. So why do you assume they can't all be?
I'd need real evidence that they could. Usually what I see is that the absence of
rule of law leads to Mafias, violence, and negative results. That's the real world
evidence I've come across. I'd need to see contrary evidence to be convinced
otherwise.
> Are you familiar with the sort of anarcho-capitalist legal system that I
> proposed in _Machinery of Freedom_ or with Bruce Benson's work on
> historical systems of private law?
I've read a lot of abstract stuff of how things *could* work from both the Left and
the Right. But I tend to look to the messy outcomes of real world interactions
first. With assumptions and models you can prove virtually ANYTHING to be
possible.
cheers, scott
http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~erb/
Scott Erb
David Friedman wrote:
>
> I think you have to distinguish between official ideology and the
> beliefs that actually drove most people in the system. My not very
> expert impression is that the Soviet Union was in fact a very unequal
> system, with far more class privilege (for example special stores
> restricted to the nomenklatura) than in capitalist societies. If so, it
> is unclear whether you should blame the collapse on the theoretical
> egalitarianism or the real inegalitarianism (or other things).
The collapse was caused by the bureaucratization inherent in a central
planned economy. Bureaucracies are inherently conservative and
inflexible, and ultimately stagnate. There was, to be sure, more
equality throughout the system than in most places, but at the top you
did have a privileged Nomenklatura who, like the old Czarist
aristocrats, had special privileges. But centralizing power in the
government like that led to a few things, two especially tragic: 1) the
ability of someone like Stalin to grab power and weild it at his whim,
meaning the deaths of 20 million; and 2) an economy that after an
initial spurt stagnated as bureaucratic politics created a stifling
stagnation that thwarted individual initiative and was inflexible to
change. That is why most Leftists these days, recognize the need for
markets to be the main allocator of goods and services in any system.
Governments can't handle that task. One can be skeptical of capitalism
and too much pure market and still believe markets are an essential part
of any working economic system.
David Friedman
Scott Erb <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
> The collapse was caused by the bureaucratization inherent in a central
> planned economy. Bureaucracies are inherently conservative and
> inflexible, and ultimately stagnate.
This makes it sound as though the institution of bureaucracy is the
problem, rather than the institution of a central planned economy. Is
that actually your view? Do you think that if you had a bunch of smart
enthusiastic people running the central planning bureau, it would work?
> There was, to be sure, more
> equality throughout the system than in most places,
How do you know? The state controlled the statistics. It was clearly in
their interest to say there was a lot of equality.
I don't know either--my impression is based mostly on _The Russians_.
One of the points it mentioned was that you needed permission to move to
Moscow, and that there were stories of people who set up fake marriages
in order to get that permission. That, and other details in the book,
suggested that the inter-regional inequality was enormously higher than
in the U.S.
...
> But centralizing power in the
> government like that led to a few things, two especially tragic: 1) the
> ability of someone like Stalin to grab power and weild it at his whim,
> meaning the deaths of 20 million; and 2) an economy that after an
> initial spurt stagnated as bureaucratic politics created a stifling
> stagnation that thwarted individual initiative and was inflexible to
> change.
How do you know there was an initial spurt? Again, aren't you relying on
their statistics? We now know that their official statistics were lies
at the end--why assume they were ever true?
My impression from a variety of sources is that the communist states,
despite all their talk about making sacrifices now to build up the
economy, were actually living on capital. That fits the condition of the
housing stock.
Suppose you are Stalin and you want people to believe you are doing a
good job of running the economy. You can't actually deliver bread and
butter and clothing and housing, because you are actually doing a very
bad job of running the economy. So instead you tell people that although
life is hard now, that is because you are diverting resources to long
run objectives--building up the industrial base. By telling them that,
you switch your claim to one they cannot check--which means you can get
away with making it for longer.
> That is why most Leftists these days, recognize the need for
> markets to be the main allocator of goods and services in any system.
Depends who you define as a leftist. A lot of left anarchists online
reject the market even as a system for coordination among worker run
coops.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
Scott Erb <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
> David Friedman wrote:
...
> > > The complexity of this world
> > > defies any black and white solution.
...
> > I disagree in part and agree in part.
> >
> > "The complexity of this world defies any black and white solution"
> > translates as "there are no corner solutions," which we know is false.
> > There are lots of people who are alive, lots of people who are dead, and
> > very few people who are in between--although the human organism is a
> > very complicated system. Lots of places where no water is liquid. Add
> > examples for yourself.
>
> But, of course, those are very different sorts of questions than the kind of
> complex political, ethical and sociological questions involved in issues of
> what kind of political or economic system would be best.
I assumed that when you wrote "the complexity defies" you didn't merely
mean "the system is complex and it defies," but were implying "because
the system is complex, it defies." I therefore pointed out that there
are lots of complex systems which end up in corner solutions--i.e. black
or white outcomes. So you can't conclude from the complexity of the
problem that the solution isn't, in some respects, a simple one.
...
> Of course, one can weasel out of that by
> tautologically defining murder as "unjustified" killing and then defining
> away all
> allowed killing by rationalizing it as justified. But that's pretty lame.
But if you actually look at the way murder is defined, you are observing
black and white--reasonably sharp edged rules. If complexity defies
simple solutions, then it shoudl be all standards rather than rules.
> > Of course, you can reply that some killing
> > isn't murder and isn't illegal--but that still leaves a large and fairly
> > well defined set of acts, all of which are against the law.
>
> They are against the law, sure. But see what you are doing -- you're looking
> to a
> specific social norm and its acceptance as somehow being an argument against
> the
> claim that economic and social reality is complex, dynamic and defies no easy
> solution.
You are confusing two quite differrent questions--whether the reality is
complex and dynamic, and whether it has no easy solutions. As I pointed
out above, complex dynamic systems sometimes have simple solutions. A
crystal, for example.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
Scott Erb <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
> > This appears inconsistent with your previous statement. If you don't
> > have a right collectively to stop someone from acting in his interest,
> > then you don't have a right to take away his property--which is what
> > taxation, progressive or otherwise, does.
>
> It has to be a power exercised only with oversight, fairness, and societal
> agreement (some kind of democratic choice).
If you don't have a right to do something, you don't have a right to do
it with oversight, fairness, and societal agreement--unless the latter
means unanimity, so that you are really not doing "it" (depriving
someone of property without his consent) at all.
I'm not, at this point, objecting to the assertion you are
making--merely to your trying to claim two inconsistent positions at
once.
> > > > Creating "equality" of opportunity isn't even a goal.
> > >
> > > For whom? It is a goal for me, because I see it as necessary to bring
> > > about trueliberty for all.
> >
> > Could you explain that?
>
> Without equal opportunity, there is no real freedom for those lacking the
> opportunities that others have. They are structurally constrained from
> having the full range of choices and possibilities others have.
Putting it that way is, to put it mildly, odd. Read your words. You seem
to be saying that if nobody can do something, then the inability to do
it doesn't limit my freedom, but if you learn how to do something, then
the fact that I can't do it does limit my freedom.
Why should my freedom be defined by the choices other people have?
Suppose nobody knows how to swim. One person somehow figures out how,
and decides to teach a few, but only a few, other people. Taking your
words literally, everyone else in the world has just lost their real
freedom. I doubt you believe that, and suggest that you rethink either
your beliefs or the words you are using to describe them.
> > We have a society where some people have level of opportunity 10, some
> > 15, however defined. Are you saying that if we reduce the latter to 10
> > we have brought about more true liberty for all?
>
> Who said it would be a reduction?
What you said implied that even if it were a reduction, it would bring
about more true liberty--read your sentences.
If equal opportunity is 15, and some have
> 20-25,
> and others have 5-10, trying to bring everyone to a place near 15 would be
> proper.
But if you go back to the case of the man who starts a business, makes a
lot of money, and leaves the business to his son, by doing that he
hasn't reduced the opportunities of other people--the business wouldn't
be there to be run if it weren't for him. Yet you claim that that sort
of action, repeated, reduces the freedom of the people who haven't
become rich.
So to make your argument, you have to either claim that:
1. Any time someone takes acts that increase the opportunities for one
person, he automatically decrease those for others--which is obviously
false, or ...
2. Increasing opportunity for some is a reduction in the freedom of the
others, even if it doesn't reduce their opportunities
Which is the position I was trying to force you to defend (or abandon)
here.
> > No, quite the opposite. It improves society when more people can read,
> > more people
> > > have the tools for success, a good education, and a solid background.
> > But since government involvement in schooling children has the opposite
> > consequences, that's an argument against it not for it.
> Government involvement in schooling has world wide increased literacy
> dramatically.
Do you have any evidence for that claim?
West, in _Education and the Industrial Revolution_, actually looked at
the question (for England in the 19th century) and was unable to find
any. Literacy was rising before government got involved, the rise
continued after government got involved, no observable change in the
pattern. He could not even find a statistically significant change in
the share of national income going to schooling from before there was
any government involvement to the end of the century, with a full scale
system of compulsory state schooling. Nor was there much difference
between average years of schooling for English working class kids c.
1830 (before any involvement) and Prussian kids in the contemporary
compulsory, public Prussian system.
Or this merely a declaration of faith--that even thought markets work
better for most things, government production is somehow better for the
very difficult and complicated task of educating children?
> > But a lot of legal institutions and rules of the game are created and
> > enforced outside of government. So why do you assume they can't all be?
> I'd need real evidence that they could. Usually what I see is that the
> absence of
> rule of law leads to Mafias, violence, and negative results. That's the real
> world
> evidence I've come across. I'd need to see contrary evidence to be convinced
> otherwise.
> > Are you familiar with the sort of anarcho-capitalist legal system that I
> > proposed in _Machinery of Freedom_ or with Bruce Benson's work on
> > historical systems of private law?
>
> I've read a lot of abstract stuff of how things *could* work from both the
> Left and
> the Right. But I tend to look to the messy outcomes of real world
> interactions
> first. With assumptions and models you can prove virtually ANYTHING to be
> possible.
Or in other words, no you have not looked at the evidence of private
enforcement, dispute resolution, etc.--thus enabling you to assert that
there is only theory and not evidence. I suggest Lisa Bernstein's work
(on arbitration), my articles on saga period Iceland and 18th century
England (both on my web page), and Bruce Benson's _The Enterprise of
Law_. Also Robert Ellickson's _Order Without Law_.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Scott D. Erb
George Weinberg wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 11:56:59 GMT, Scott Erb
> <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
> >Of course not. But it is an example of how social structures develop to empower
> >some and constrain others, ultimately, when repeated and reinforced, leading to
> >social classes with vastly unequal opportunity and high power differentials. It is
> >a myth to think the rich are rich because they deserve to be, and the poor are poor
> >from their own doings alone.
> >
> My point was that nobody claims this.
Well, on the internet you'll be surprised what some people claim!
> What capitalists will claim is that the opporunities
> even poor and uneducated people have in a free market economy are
> vastly greater than what anyone except the oligarchs have
> in the second or third worlds.
I'd only note that the opportunities have increased with the advent of a mixed economy,
suggesting that a balance between government and business has produced the most optimal
results in history. But certainly the last fifty years have seen in the industrialized
west the biggest growth of wealth in the history of the world. Still, there are some
things that are problemmatic:
First, there is that lingering and enduring underdevelopment in the Third World. Up the
last few centuries there was never such global disparities, and the economics are such
that the only 'comparative advantage' third world countries have is cheap labor and
cheap raw materials. It doesn't appear that is enough to give them a shot at
competitive development in all but a small minority of cases (and even then the
successes are precarious, with other factors giving them an advantage). It could be
part of our wealth is due to a type of neo-colonial exploitation of the South.
Second, the fact that things are better than anywhere else is something which OF COURSE
suggests that there be no radical changes which threaten what our mixed systems have
accomplished. However, given the problems inherent in our society as well as the world,
I think its proper to consider how to even improve on the success we've had.
> It may be "a goal", but it's no one's goal. Need based distribution
> means distributing on the basis of (peceived) need, not
> based on redressing real or imagined historical injustices.
Actually, it means simply assuring the tools to succeed. To me that is education,
health care, basic nutrition and shelter standards, laws against racial, ethnic or
gender discrimination. Positive things to give people tools to succeed on their own,
not just distribution based on perceived need.
> >I don't think the intelligent have a natural right to claim so much wealth that
> >they deny equal opportunity and liberty for the poor. I don't think this gives
> >them license to exploit the "less intelligent."
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "exploit". If you mean
> "pay them less per hour", we'll have to agree to disagree.
Basically it's paying people less than their work is worth just because the market will
bear it. The classic example is the industrial revolution when the breakdown of
agriculture on the countryside meant no real opportunities there, and people went into
towns where the labor supply was so great that industrialists could hire them very
cheap. The result was sustinence wages while the profits went completely into the hands
of the owners. Ultimately union pressure and the state helped remedy that extreme, but
it shows that markets are not real indicators of actual worth. The work that was done
created more value than they were reimbursed for. To be sure, there is value for
investment, management skills, and risk taking. I am not advocating equal wages for
everyone. However, equal opportunity along with basic regulations protecting worker
health and welfare and having employers contribute to the cost of maintaining a fair
system I think will be a path towards improvement for everyone.
> I'm not sure what you mean by "so much wealth that they
> deny equal opportunity". Obviously if we have different
> amounts of wealth, we have different opportunities.
And that can amount to structural power, which may not be visible like overt coercion,
but can be very real in creating social classes which tend to keep winning, while other
classes tend to keep ending up with poor jobs or less real opportunity.
> > However, the problem with social
> >structures is that once class structures are created, they empower and constrain
> >with little regard for effort or intelligence. Intelligent people born in ghettos
> >often don't get the equality schooling, have a social system that promotes
> >ambition, and the most intelligent might see drug selling as the best way to
> >success.
> >
>
> Maybe it is, it's where "America's Royal Family" got their wealth.
> But that's not really the point. In this country you've got millions
> of people who come here with no education, not even the
> ability to speak English well (or in some cases ast all),
> in many cases they don't even have the protection of the law
> (if they're here illegally), and they not only make what they
> consider a decent life for themselves, they're sending money
> "home" to support families they don't even see for months or
> even years at a time. Opportunities are here for those who seek them.
Sure, and there are regulations and rules that make things better than it would be
without a mixed system. But it's not as good as it could be, in my opinion, and that's
why I keep trying to think of how to move ahead and improve.
> What traps people (and, more importantly, families), in poverty is
> not their lack of education; that can be overcome. What really traps
> people are "aid" programs that couldn't be more effective at
> keeping people dependent on them if that's what they were designed to
> do.
That's obviously false: people were trapped even before aid started, and in fact things
have improved over the past fifty years for all of society since the new deal began. If
your proposition were true, then we wouldn't see social classes trapped before aid
programs began, but they most certainly were.
> >I don't see how sovereignty comes in here, but there are many examples of shared
> >sovereignty, or sovereignty being legal along side practical sacrifices of 'pieces'
> >of sovereignty (such as the EU's subsidiarity.)
>
> The EU isn't that different from what the USA used to be. I don't
> think it'll take anything like 4 score and seven years before a
> country wants out. It'll be interesting to see what happens then.
I think you probably haven't studied the EU much. It's very different than the US early
on, and its structures are at this point confederal and likely to remain that way. In
fact, there are some interesting developments along the lines of regional integration
and subsidiarity. No, I think you're predicting on the fly based on little indepth
study of the region and its economics, politics, and institutions.
> >> Fundamentally, either the individual has the right to say he's
> >> not going to do a damn thing to help anyone else if he doesn't
> >> want to, or "society" can demand the individual does
> >> whatever they desire. There is no middle ground.
> >
> >The whole world attests to the opposite. We are individuals and we are inherently
> >members of a society. We have no real identity, position, culture or tradition
> >outside of the social webs into which we are born and in which we become
> >co-constructors of that society. Not only is there middle ground, but the reality
> >is each extreme (all is society, or it's only individuals) is impossible.
> >cheers, scott
> >
> >
> You're misreading me. Let me try to clarify. Imagine that there
> is something I'll call a "right", which I won't try to define, but
> I'll give an example; if I have a "right" to my own religion,
> which I'll pretend is Falun Gong, then even if the vast majority
> in my society object to it as a "crazy cult", they can't ban it.
> The key concept of an individual right is that it cannot be
> overruled by soiciety.
But an individual right does not exist absent societal consent. You don't have a right
to freedom of religion in China, obviously, and in the US you can't take multiple wives
if your religion says you should. Rights are political constructs. Now, you can argue
that ethically some rights OUGHT to be politically guaranteed due to human nature (the
concept of natural rights) or ethical/religious beliefs. But actual rights, which
society cannot violate, only truly exist when they are socially constructed and part of
a societal context.
> Now let's skip asking what "rights" if any a person might have and
> skip to the metaquestion, who decides what right if any a person
> might have. If "society" decides, then of course there are no rights
> at all, since society can always decide "that isn't a right".
OBVIOUSLY it is a societal decision!!!! What "rights" exist vary from country to
country, that is undeniable. We may ethically think human nature suggests that certain
rights ought to be guaranteed. I certainly think so, and have a focus on human rights
in my activities. But I'm working to socially construct these systems of rights I
believe are ethically proper according to the nature of what a human is. Until they are
socially constructed, they don't actually exist in the world.
> Conversely, if an individual can define his own rights,
> he could easily assert "I have the right to do whatever I want,
> whenever I want".
Outside of a societal context he can. Inside society, he can't, because the rights that
exist effectively are social constructs.
David Friedman
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
> I'd only note that the opportunities have increased with the advent of a
> mixed economy,
> suggesting that a balance between government and business has produced the
> most optimal
> results in history. But certainly the last fifty years have seen in the
> industrialized
> west the biggest growth of wealth in the history of the world.
Absolute or percentage? The bigger the base, the bigger the absolute
value of a given percent increase.
If your claim is that the percent increase in wealth from 1951 to 2001
is greater than in any previous period, I'm pretty sure it is false,
although I would have to do some work to prove it. Or were you limiting
yourself to fifty year periods?
A further problem with your "advent of a mixed economy" is that it makes
it sound as though we were starting with laissez-faire. But the
situation when Adam Smith wrote in the 18th century was a mixed
economy--that was a large part of what he was complaining about. From
about 1840, when England went to free trade, to 1900 was a period of
unusually high growth, historically speaking--and was the nearest thing
to an "unmixed" economy in British history. So far as most of the rest
of the world is concerned, it has almost always had a mixed economy, at
least since the invention of the nation state, except when the economy
was almost totally government controlled.
> First, there is that lingering and enduring underdevelopment in the Third
> World. Up the
> last few centuries there was never such global disparities,
You can't have a society with per capta income below subsistence for
very long, so the fact that the world was poor to some degree limited
inequality. Subject to that, what is the evidence that there weren't
large differences in how well off people were in different places a few
hundred years ago?
> and the economics are such
> that the only 'comparative advantage' third world countries have is cheap
> labor and
> cheap raw materials. It doesn't appear that is enough to give them a shot at
> competitive development in all but a small minority of cases (and even then
> the
> successes are precarious, with other factors giving them an advantage). It
> could be
> part of our wealth is due to a type of neo-colonial exploitation of the
> South.
This makes it sound as though you don't understand what "comparative
advantage" means. It has nothing to do with "competitive development."
The fact that developed countries have different relative costs than
underdeveloped countries makes each better off than it would be if the
other didn't exist. Hence a developing country today is in a better
situation than a developing country two hundred years ago--it is easier
for it to develop. That doesn't tell us whether it will be growing
faster or slower than developed countries currently are growing.
Here again, it sounds rather as though you are confusing relative and
absolute welfare. Suppose that without interaction between developed and
underdeveloped countries each would be growing at 1% a year, and that
with interaction the figures are 3% and 2%. Are the developed countries
"exploiting" the underdeveloped? If not, in what sense is the present
situation a type of neo-colonial exploitation?
> > >I don't think the intelligent have a natural right to claim so much wealth
> > >that
> > >they deny equal opportunity and liberty for the poor. I don't think this
> > >gives
> > >them license to exploit the "less intelligent."
Again, your "claim so much wealth" and "deny equal opportunity" makes it
sound as though the intelligent are taking something away from the poor.
Suppose you agreed that the existence of the intelligent made the poor
better off--but not nearly as much better off as the intelligent are.
Would you still use the terminology you are using?
A lot of your rhetoric makes it sound as though you think there is a
fixed amount of wealth in the world, hence one person getting it denies
it to someone else. But you obviously know that isn't true; wealth is
produced.
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "exploit". If you mean
> > "pay them less per hour", we'll have to agree to disagree.
>
> Basically it's paying people less than their work is worth just because the
> market will
> bear it. The classic example is the industrial revolution when the breakdown
> of
> agriculture on the countryside meant no real opportunities there, and people
> went into
> towns where the labor supply was so great that industrialists could hire them
> very
> cheap. The result was sustinence wages while the profits went completely
> into the hands
> of the owners.
Do you have any evidence for this account of the industrial revolution?
If what happened was that people were being pushed off the land into the
factories, then real wages should have been lower in both than they had
been in the past. But the available evidence shows the opposite.
Population was increasing, consumption by the working class of
"luxuries" such as tea and sugar was increasing, savings by the working
class was increasing. Take a look at T.S. Ashton's _The Industrial
Revolution_ for the evidence.
Incidentally, do you have any figures for what fraction of the revenue
of factories in the 19th century went to profits? Your rhetoric makes it
sound like 90%; my guess would be more like 10%, but I don't have
numbers readily available.
> > Now let's skip asking what "rights" if any a person might have and
> > skip to the metaquestion, who decides what right if any a person
> > might have. If "society" decides, then of course there are no rights
> > at all, since society can always decide "that isn't a right".
> OBVIOUSLY it is a societal decision!!!!
I think "societal decision" is a misleading metaphor, since nobody is
actually deciding it. Among the many things determining what positive
rights people have (i.e. what they in fact can do, as distinguished from
the normative question of what they should be free to do) are
technological factors. Public key encryption increases free speech
rights; good surveillance technology plus speech to text software plus
modern information processing decreases them. But the people who
invented those technologies weren't "deciding" to have more or less free
speech.
Positive rights are the outcome of a complicated interacting system.
People can try to influence it in various ways, but the fact that we
have a particular outcome doesn't mean that everybody, or even anybody,
wanted that outcome.
If you haven't read it, you might find my article giving a positive
account of property rights (webbed on my site) of interest.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
George Weinberg
<scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>I'd only note that the opportunities have increased with the advent of a mixed economy,
>suggesting that a balance between government and business has produced the most optimal
>results in history.
I think the rule has been pretty consistent that the freer the economy
the better things have turned out.
>First, there is that lingering and enduring underdevelopment in the Third World. Up the
>last few centuries there was never such global disparities, and the economics are such
>that the only 'comparative advantage' third world countries have is cheap labor and
>cheap raw materials. It doesn't appear that is enough to give them a shot at
>competitive development in all but a small minority of cases (and even then the
>successes are precarious, with other factors giving them an advantage). It could be
>part of our wealth is due to a type of neo-colonial exploitation of the South.
>
It could be, but it isn't. Although our wealth has made poorer
countires seem poorer by comparison, it hasn't actually made them
poorer. Obviously if they felt they'd be richer if they cut off
trade with the rest of the world they'd do so. Third world countries
tend to stay third world primarily because their governments tend to
be corrupt through and through.
>> It may be "a goal", but it's no one's goal. Need based distribution
>> means distributing on the basis of (peceived) need, not
>> based on redressing real or imagined historical injustices.
>
>Actually, it means simply assuring the tools to succeed. To me that is education,
>health care, basic nutrition and shelter standards, laws against racial, ethnic or
>gender discrimination. Positive things to give people tools to succeed on their own,
>not just distribution based on perceived need.
>
I'm astonished that you would claim that need based distribution
doesn't mean distribution based on need.
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "so much wealth that they
>> deny equal opportunity". Obviously if we have different
>> amounts of wealth, we have different opportunities.
>
>And that can amount to structural power, which may not be visible like overt coercion,
>but can be very real in creating social classes which tend to keep winning, while other
>classes tend to keep ending up with poor jobs or less real opportunity.
>
>Sure, and there are regulations and rules that make things better than it would be
>without a mixed system. But it's not as good as it could be, in my opinion, and that's
>why I keep trying to think of how to move ahead and improve.
>
"Go ahead and improve" is loaded language. It's pretty rare that
a legislator will actually admit that the sole purpose of a proposed
regulation is to protect the entrenched producers of some commodity
from cheaper competition, but that usually is both the result and the
intent. It's generally sold as being something to "protect consumers"
or "protect workers", and who wouldn't prefer a little extrra
protection, if that was really what you werre getting?
>> What traps people (and, more importantly, families), in poverty is
>> not their lack of education; that can be overcome. What really traps
>> people are "aid" programs that couldn't be more effective at
>> keeping people dependent on them if that's what they were designed to
>> do.
>
>That's obviously false: people were trapped even before aid started, and in fact things
>have improved over the past fifty years for all of society since the new deal began. If
>your proposition were true, then we wouldn't see social classes trapped before aid
>programs began, but they most certainly were.
>
First off, this is bad reasoning. If I were to claim "the vast
majority of people in this country die from heart disease or
cancer" (which I think is probably true), I certainly would not be
claiming "without heart disease or cancer, people would live
forever."
Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "trapped social classes"
There are always poor people, but they're not always the same people.
I think descendents of central and southern europeans (the
underclass of 100 years ago) have done fairly well for themselves.
>I think you probably haven't studied the EU much. It's very different than the US early
>on, and its structures are at this point confederal and likely to remain that way. In
>fact, there are some interesting developments along the lines of regional integration
>and subsidiarity. No, I think you're predicting on the fly based on little indepth
>study of the region and its economics, politics, and institutions.
>
Actually, I'm referring to what it does. The early federal
government provided a common defense, common currency,
common international tariffs, and no internal tariffs.
Regulate interstat comerce just meant that if you had a business
dispute with someone from another state it would get settled in
federal court.
>But an individual right does not exist absent societal consent. You don't have a right
>to freedom of religion in China, obviously,
This isn't at all obvious. What's obvious is that China doesn't
recognize a right to freedom of religion, which isn't the same thing.
People who believe in the concept of rights will tell you that
rights exist whether a government recognizes them or not.
>and in the US you can't take multiple wives
>if your religion says you should.
Actually, you can. You'll only have problems if you try to insist
that the government recognize your multiple "marriages" as being
legal, which of course there's no reason they should do. Being
"married" in the eyes of your church and being "married" in the eyes
of the government needn't have anything to do with each other.
>Rights are political constructs. Now, you can argue
>that ethically some rights OUGHT to be politically guaranteed due to human nature (the
>concept of natural rights) or ethical/religious beliefs. But actual rights, which
>society cannot violate, only truly exist when they are socially constructed and part of
>a societal context.
>
This is internally inconsistent. Obviously, a right which society
CANNOT violate must exist indepndent of the wishes of society.
Now, if YOU are arguing that there's really no such thing as a right,
there are only privileges which can be revoked at some later date,
well, that's a common attitude.
>OBVIOUSLY it is a societal decision!!!! What "rights" exist vary from country to
>country, that is undeniable.
I deny it, so obviously it IS deniable. If the concept of "right" as
distinct from privilege has any meaning at all, then
rights MUST be universal.
>We may ethically think human nature suggests that certain
>rights ought to be guaranteed. I certainly think so, and have a focus on human rights
>in my activities. But I'm working to socially construct these systems of rights I
>believe are ethically proper according to the nature of what a human is. Until they are
>socially constructed, they don't actually exist in the world.
>
>> Conversely, if an individual can define his own rights,
>> he could easily assert "I have the right to do whatever I want,
>> whenever I want".
>
>Outside of a societal context he can. Inside society, he can't, because the rights that
>exist effectively are social constructs.
>
By "exist effectively", do you mean anything ther than
"are recognized by society?"
Ethically, there are laws that society has no moral authority to
pass. I belive you stated that yourself.
Practically, there are laws that society cannot enforce.
If we agree that society has no moral authroity to pass a certain law,
then that's equivalent to saying that one has a morla right to violate
it.
George
Scott Erb
David Friedman wrote:
> In article <3AD1185B...@maine.edu>,
> Scott Erb <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
> > The collapse was caused by the bureaucratization inherent in a central
> > planned economy. Bureaucracies are inherently conservative and
> > inflexible, and ultimately stagnate.
>
> This makes it sound as though the institution of bureaucracy is the
> problem, rather than the institution of a central planned economy. Is
> that actually your view? Do you think that if you had a bunch of smart
> enthusiastic people running the central planning bureau, it would work?
I don't think that would be possible. The nature of central planning
requires bureaucracy, and the nature of bureaucracy will lead to the problems
I described. That's basic bureaucratic theory combined with looking at what
was needed to run a centrally planned economy.
> > There was, to be sure, more
> > equality throughout the system than in most places,
>
> How do you know? The state controlled the statistics. It was clearly in
> their interest to say there was a lot of equality.
I've studied the region quite a bit, and have visited Russia, former East
Germany, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. It seems the consensus view
among those who study the region, but if you have evidence to the contrary,
let me know.
> I don't know either--my impression is based mostly on _The Russians_.
> One of the points it mentioned was that you needed permission to move to
> Moscow, and that there were stories of people who set up fake marriages
> in order to get that permission. That, and other details in the book,
> suggested that the inter-regional inequality was enormously higher than
> in the U.S.
Oh yeah, that's certainly true, and much more true now than then. Moscovites
were better off, and different regions had different standards. That is more
a function of the huge size of Russia than the system; smaller East bloc
states had some differences between capital cities and the country sides, but
it was arguably less inequality than before. The Communists subsidized rural
regions and they have gotten much worse since. Interregional inequality is
immense now in Russia, much worse than in the USSR.
> > But centralizing power in the
> > government like that led to a few things, two especially tragic: 1) the
> > ability of someone like Stalin to grab power and weild it at his whim,
> > meaning the deaths of 20 million; and 2) an economy that after an
> > initial spurt stagnated as bureaucratic politics created a stifling
> > stagnation that thwarted individual initiative and was inflexible to
> > change.
>
> How do you know there was an initial spurt? Again, aren't you relying on
> their statistics? We now know that their official statistics were lies
> at the end--why assume they were ever true?
Russia clearly modernized and built a huge industrial base, that is
undeniable. Also growth did occur early after WWII, not all statistics were
lies, and KGB statistics were very good (and a lot of that information is
coming out now). By your logic we can't make ANY claims about the Soviet
economy because the statistics weren't credible. But we can look at general
conditions, output, and evidence, and make educated guesses on what to make
of statistics. By the mid-seventies even the KGB knew the system was falling
apart (one reason Andropove was chosen to head the Soviet Union, as well as
later his protege Gorbachev).
> My impression from a variety of sources is that the communist states,
> despite all their talk about making sacrifices now to build up the
> economy, were actually living on capital. That fits the condition of the
> housing stock.
>
> Suppose you are Stalin and you want people to believe you are doing a
> good job of running the economy. You can't actually deliver bread and
> butter and clothing and housing, because you are actually doing a very
> bad job of running the economy. So instead you tell people that although
> life is hard now, that is because you are diverting resources to long
> run objectives--building up the industrial base. By telling them that,
> you switch your claim to one they cannot check--which means you can get
> away with making it for longer.
Life conditions improved dramatically for the average Russian after the
revolution, and especially by the sixties they had a much better standard of
living. If the West didn't exist, it might have been thought to be
successful. The military sucked a lot out of the economy, though, and the
stagnation caused by the conservative nature of bureaucratic control
destroyed individual initiative and flexibility. I believe it was the
mid-sixties when growth rates became consistently negative.
> > That is why most Leftists these days, recognize the need for
> > markets to be the main allocator of goods and services in any system.
>
> Depends who you define as a leftist. A lot of left anarchists online
> reject the market even as a system for coordination among worker run
> coops.
That's why I said "most," not "all."
Scott Erb
David Friedman wrote:
> In article <3AD11ACC...@mail.verizon.net>,
> Scott Erb <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > David Friedman wrote:
>
> > But, of course, those are very different sorts of questions than the kind of
> > complex political, ethical and sociological questions involved in issues of
> > what kind of political or economic system would be best.
>
> I assumed that when you wrote "the complexity defies" you didn't merely
> mean "the system is complex and it defies," but were implying "because
> the system is complex, it defies." I therefore pointed out that there
> are lots of complex systems which end up in corner solutions--i.e. black
> or white outcomes. So you can't conclude from the complexity of the
> problem that the solution isn't, in some respects, a simple one.
I mean the complexity of this system, plus our inability to observe just parts of
it, run controlled experiments, and eliminate the impact of perspective on our
interpretation of events, I can't see how we can have a black and white
conclusion. I'm sorry my wording was imprecise.
> > Of course, one can weasel out of that by
> > tautologically defining murder as "unjustified" killing and then defining
> > away all
> > allowed killing by rationalizing it as justified. But that's pretty lame.
>
> But if you actually look at the way murder is defined, you are observing
> black and white--reasonably sharp edged rules. If complexity defies
> simple solutions, then it shoudl be all standards rather than rules.
But the issue is really killing. Murder is the word we use to describe unjust
killing, other types of killing are given other words. So really, it's a
linguistic construct, or a convention. If we define our terms in black and white
ways they will have the appearance of being clear cut, but how they get defined
that way is another story. Go away from something that seems as basic as murder,
and add to the variables and issues at hand, and the problem grows increasingly
difficult. That's why I tend not to trust abstract "isms" or attempts to define by
theory a "proper" or "best" system.
> > Of course, you can reply that some killing
> > > isn't murder and isn't illegal--but that still leaves a large and fairly
> > > well defined set of acts, all of which are against the law.
> >
> > They are against the law, sure. But see what you are doing -- you're looking
> > to a
> > specific social norm and its acceptance as somehow being an argument against
> > the
> > claim that economic and social reality is complex, dynamic and defies no easy
> > solution.
>
> You are confusing two quite differrent questions--whether the reality is
> complex and dynamic, and whether it has no easy solutions. As I pointed
> out above, complex dynamic systems sometimes have simple solutions. A
> crystal, for example.
I guess I don't see how that is analogous to social and political systems.
cheers, scott
PS: I was going to respond to your e-mail, but left it on my office computer. Is
it my posts from my verizon account which get small print, or my maine.edu
account? Thanks.
Scott Erb
David Friedman wrote:
> In article <3AD11D18...@mail.verizon.net>,
> Scott Erb <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > This appears inconsistent with your previous statement. If you don't
> > > have a right collectively to stop someone from acting in his interest,
> > > then you don't have a right to take away his property--which is what
> > > taxation, progressive or otherwise, does.
> >
> > It has to be a power exercised only with oversight, fairness, and societal
> > agreement (some kind of democratic choice).
>
> If you don't have a right to do something, you don't have a right to do
> it with oversight, fairness, and societal agreement--unless the latter
> means unanimity, so that you are really not doing "it" (depriving
> someone of property without his consent) at all.
That's why those conditions have to be defined when defining what the right is, and
when it is properly exercised. Rights are only meaningful in a social context, and
the content of any act depends on the context (that's why killing might be
justified in some contexts, but an unjust violation of someone's right to life in
others)
> I'm not, at this point, objecting to the assertion you are
> making--merely to your trying to claim two inconsistent positions at
> once.
I'm not seeing why.
> > Without equal opportunity, there is no real freedom for those lacking the
> > opportunities that others have. They are structurally constrained from
> > having the full range of choices and possibilities others have.
>
> Putting it that way is, to put it mildly, odd. Read your words. You seem
> to be saying that if nobody can do something, then the inability to do
> it doesn't limit my freedom, but if you learn how to do something, then
> the fact that I can't do it does limit my freedom.
No, that isn't what I mean. I mean that if one's acts allow one to gain more
power, and if that power is used to create structural advantages that limit the
opportunities of others to be able to, all other things being equal, achieve
relatively equal outcomes if they possess equal talent and effort, then there is a
limitation of freedom. Structural barriers are the most pernicious as they are
invisible, and people can benefit from structural advantage while appearing to
simply be making free choices. Dealing with them is tough. Communism was like
taking a sledge hammer to them and ultimately it made everyone worse. The key is
to raise the chances of success for all, help provide real opportunity to those
structurally disadvantaged, and recognize that will benefit society as a whole.
> Why should my freedom be defined by the choices other people have?
It is inevitable. Freedom is always defined in a social context, no one ever gets
to do whatever they want. You can only choose within your circumstances, and those
circumstances are created by the choices of others around you. If circumstances
are unjustly limited due to structural power differentials, then it is just for
collective or political action to try to work against that injustice.
>Suppose nobody knows how to swim. One person somehow figures out how,
> and decides to teach a few, but only a few, other people. Taking your
> words literally, everyone else in the world has just lost their real
> freedom. I doubt you believe that, and suggest that you rethink either
> your beliefs or the words you are using to describe them.
That has absolutely nothing to do with my claim, or the words I used to describe
them. I have no idea how you come to that conclusion. If over time the ability to
swim provides some with real advantages, and creates an inability for those born to
or related to those who didn't learn how to swim to achieve as much in society or
have the same opportunities as the swimmers, and if this reinforces differentials
in wealth and power that limit opportunities for entire classes of people, then
perhaps some action to promote equal opportunity would be necessary. But I don't
think that kind of analogy really addresses the points I make.
> > > We have a society where some people have level of opportunity 10, some
> > > 15, however defined. Are you saying that if we reduce the latter to 10
> > > we have brought about more true liberty for all?
> >
> > Who said it would be a reduction?
>
> What you said implied that even if it were a reduction, it would bring
> about more true liberty--read your sentences.
No, I don't think that is the case at all.
> If equal opportunity is 15, and some have
> > 20-25,
> > and others have 5-10, trying to bring everyone to a place near 15 would be
> > proper.
>
> But if you go back to the case of the man who starts a business, makes a
> lot of money, and leaves the business to his son, by doing that he
> hasn't reduced the opportunities of other people--the business wouldn't
> be there to be run if it weren't for him.
I disagree. I think that can over time lead to structural advantages if those who
have wealth can use that wealth to increase their chances of success without having
to undertake as much effort, while others might have less education, poor health
care, and will require considerably more chances for success. You don't destroy
the business, you just use some progressive taxation to assure that the impact of
structural differentials of power don't create long term class differences.
> Yet you claim that that sort
> of action, repeated, reduces the freedom of the people who haven't
> become rich.
>
> So to make your argument, you have to either claim that:
>
> 1. Any time someone takes acts that increase the opportunities for one
> person, he automatically decrease those for others--which is obviously
> false, or ...
>
> 2. Increasing opportunity for some is a reduction in the freedom of the
> others, even if it doesn't reduce their opportunities
No, you seem to miss the entire point: only if the power and wealth that results
from actions leads to a situation where one class of people is structurally
advantaged vis-a-vis another class in terms of what they can achieve due to
differences in opportunity (education differences, health care, etc.) then acts to
promote true equal opportunity are just to promote maximum liberty. It only
becomes a problem if the power and wealth generated by choices leads to structures
that create classes where there are real differences.
> Which is the position I was trying to force you to defend (or abandon)
> here.
>
> > > No, quite the opposite. It improves society when more people can read,
> > > more people
> > > > have the tools for success, a good education, and a solid background.
>
> > > But since government involvement in schooling children has the opposite
> > > consequences, that's an argument against it not for it.
>
> > Government involvement in schooling has world wide increased literacy
> > dramatically.
>
> Do you have any evidence for that claim?
How can you doubt it??!!!! Literacy rates have reason world wide as governments
have instituted literacy programs, be it manditory education in Europe and the US,
or even in places like Communist Cuba. I have never heard anyone doubt that
government involvement has correlated with massive increases in education
standards. The evidence that the countries with more government -- Japan, Germany,
even Communist states -- end up doing better than the more decentralized American
system is pretty clear.
> West, in _Education and the Industrial Revolution_, actually looked at
> the question (for England in the 19th century) and was unable to find
> any. Literacy was rising before government got involved, the rise
> continued after government got involved, no observable change in the
> pattern. He could not even find a statistically significant change in
> the share of national income going to schooling from before there was
> any government involvement to the end of the century, with a full scale
> system of compulsory state schooling. Nor was there much difference
> between average years of schooling for English working class kids c.
> 1830 (before any involvement) and Prussian kids in the contemporary
> compulsory, public Prussian system.
Look world wide, look at efforts by UNESCO. I think government got involved
because it was needed to really spread literacy, to meet the growing demand. But
of course all it can be is a correlation. Causality seems reasonable to assume to
me, certainly negative causality (to say government makes things worse) seems
unreasonable.
> Or this merely a declaration of faith--that even thought markets work
> better for most things, government production is somehow better for the
> very difficult and complicated task of educating children?
It seems to fit evidence around the world in comparative governments and various
regions. I see no evidence to the contrary.
> > > But a lot of legal institutions and rules of the game are created and
> > > enforced outside of government. So why do you assume they can't all be?
>
> > I'd need real evidence that they could. Usually what I see is that the
> > absence of
> > rule of law leads to Mafias, violence, and negative results. That's the real
> > world
> > evidence I've come across. I'd need to see contrary evidence to be convinced
> > otherwise.
>
> > > Are you familiar with the sort of anarcho-capitalist legal system that I
> > > proposed in _Machinery of Freedom_ or with Bruce Benson's work on
> > > historical systems of private law?
> >
> > I've read a lot of abstract stuff of how things *could* work from both the
> > Left and
> > the Right. But I tend to look to the messy outcomes of real world
> > interactions
> > first. With assumptions and models you can prove virtually ANYTHING to be
> > possible.
>
> Or in other words, no you have not looked at the evidence of private
> enforcement, dispute resolution, etc.--thus enabling you to assert that
> there is only theory and not evidence. I suggest Lisa Bernstein's work
> (on arbitration), my articles on saga period Iceland and 18th century
> England (both on my web page), and Bruce Benson's _The Enterprise of
> Law_. Also Robert Ellickson's _Order Without Law_.
I'll look if I have time, but a lot that was possible in small regions in the past
are anarchonistic now. I doubt Iceland is much of template for other cultures, nor
is the 18th century in specific regions very likely to counter the evidence from a
current look at how governments function. Governments are here to stay, of course,
as are mixed economies, at least for the next few generations. But how that is
organized and how it should be organized are difficult issues.
cheers, scott
David Friedman
Scott Erb <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
> David Friedman wrote:
> > > Without equal opportunity, there is no real freedom for those lacking the
> > > opportunities that others have. They are structurally constrained from
> > > having the full range of choices and possibilities others have.
> >
> > Putting it that way is, to put it mildly, odd. Read your words. You seem
> > to be saying that if nobody can do something, then the inability to do
> > it doesn't limit my freedom, but if you learn how to do something, then
> > the fact that I can't do it does limit my freedom.
>
> No, that isn't what I mean. I mean that if one's acts allow one to gain more
> power, and if that power is used to create structural advantages that limit
> the
> opportunities of others to be able to, all other things being equal, achieve
> relatively equal outcomes if they possess equal talent and effort, then there
> is a limitation of freedom.
But "relatively equal outcomes" itself depends on what they are being
equal to.
For purposes of clarity, consider a case where the people are not
interacting at all. John and Bob each has cleared his little patch of
jungle and is living there. John happens to be a much better farmer than
Bob. John uses that ability to grow a fruit orchard, with the result
that, ten years later, John lives a life of leisure picking ripe fruit
from time to time, while poor Bob is still sweating away in his grain
field.
John's act has gained him more power--the power to have food without
doing much further work for it. That is an advantage over Bob. You could
say that that advantage limits Bob's opportunities to "achieve
relatively equal outcomes." But it does so not by restricting Bob's
opportunities--they are exactly the same as if John had never
existed--but by raising the definition of "equal outcomes," since
"equal" is now "equal to John's improved standard of living."
You might reply that all this is acceptable because it doesn't meet your
"if they possess equal talent and effort" condition. But now consider
John Jr. and Bob Jr. John Jr. inherits his father's orchard and life of
leisure. So John senior, by planting the orchard, limited Bob Jr.'s
opportunity to achieve outcomes equal to those of John Jr., even if Bob
Jr. has the same effort and ability as Bob Jr.
Now do you see what bothers me about your position? You seem to confuse
the claim "A limited B's opportunities" in the sense of "reduced the
range of things B cold do" with the claim "A limited B's opportunities
to achieve equal outcomes with C," where the latter might mean "A
improved C's opportunities without at all restricting B's."
> > Why should my freedom be defined by the choices other people have?
> It is inevitable. Freedom is always defined in a social context, no one ever
> gets
> to do whatever they want. You can only choose within your circumstances, and
> those
> circumstances are created by the choices of others around you. If
> circumstances
> are unjustly limited due to structural power differentials, then it is just
> for
> collective or political action to try to work against that injustice.
But you just assumed your conclusion via "unjustly."
If A does something that increases C's opportunities while neither
increasing nor decreasing B's opportunities, has he "unjustly limited"
B? Certainly he has made it harder for B to achieve the same outcome as
C.
> >Suppose nobody knows how to swim. One person somehow figures out how,
>
> > and decides to teach a few, but only a few, other people. Taking your
> > words literally, everyone else in the world has just lost their real
> > freedom. I doubt you believe that, and suggest that you rethink either
> > your beliefs or the words you are using to describe them.
>
> That has absolutely nothing to do with my claim, or the words I used to
> describe
> them. I have no idea how you come to that conclusion. If over time the
> ability to
> swim provides some with real advantages, and creates an inability for those
> born to
> or related to those who didn't learn how to swim to achieve as much in
> society or
> have the same opportunities as the swimmers, and if this reinforces
> differentials
> in wealth and power that limit opportunities for entire classes of people,
> then
> perhaps some action to promote equal opportunity would be necessary. But I
> don't
> think that kind of analogy really addresses the points I make.
Again, does "provides some with real advantages" mean "make it possible
for some people to benefit themselves at someone else's expense" or does
it mean "make it possible for some people to benefit themselves?" Those
are two quite different things, and so far you seem to very unclear as
to which you mean. I was assuming that being able to swim was useful,
hence provided those who knew with real advantages--but not at other
people's expense.
> > But if you go back to the case of the man who starts a business, makes a
> > lot of money, and leaves the business to his son, by doing that he
> > hasn't reduced the opportunities of other people--the business wouldn't
> > be there to be run if it weren't for him.
>
> I disagree. I think that can over time lead to structural advantages if
> those who
> have wealth can use that wealth to increase their chances of success without
> having
> to undertake as much effort, while others might have less education, poor
> health
> care, and will require considerably more chances for success. You don't
> destroy
> the business, you just use some progressive taxation to assure that the
> impact of
> structural differentials of power don't create long term class differences.
Again, does the structural advantage make it harder for the poor to
achieve some given level X, or does it merely make it harder for them to
do as well as the rich? These are two wholly different claims, one of
which is surely true and one probably false.
> > Yet you claim that that sort
> > of action, repeated, reduces the freedom of the people who haven't
> > become rich.
> >
> > So to make your argument, you have to either claim that:
> >
> > 1. Any time someone takes acts that increase the opportunities for one
> > person, he automatically decrease those for others--which is obviously
> > false, or ...
> >
> > 2. Increasing opportunity for some is a reduction in the freedom of the
> > others, even if it doesn't reduce their opportunities
>
> No, you seem to miss the entire point: only if the power and wealth that
> results
> from actions leads to a situation where one class of people is structurally
> advantaged vis-a-vis another class in terms of what they can achieve due to
> differences in opportunity (education differences, health care, etc.) then
> acts to
> promote true equal opportunity are just to promote maximum liberty. It only
> becomes a problem if the power and wealth generated by choices leads to
> structures
> that create classes where there are real differences.
But an action that makes me better off creates a real difference between
me and you even if it doesn't make you worse off. So your language
immediately above seems to imply my version 2 above.
I'm trying to get you to distinguish between the case where "the power
and wealth" results in giving some people more opportunities than they
would otherwise have had without reducing the opportunities of others
and the case where it results in increasing the opportunities of some
and decreasing the opportunities of others. Both of those represent
"structures that create classes where there are real differences." But
only one is a case where, in any sense I find meaningful, the freedom of
some has been reduced.
> > > Government involvement in schooling has world wide increased literacy
> > > dramatically.
> > Do you have any evidence for that claim?
> How can you doubt it??!!!!
Perhaps because I have actually looked at little at the evidence?
Literacy rates in England started rising well before the government
became involved. I believe the same was true in the U.S., which West
discusses in a couple of articles, but I'm less certain.
> I have never heard anyone doubt that
> government involvement has correlated with massive increases in education
> standards.
That is an interesting fact about you, but tells us little about the
evidence.
> The evidence that the countries with more government -- Japan,
> Germany,
> even Communist states -- end up doing better than the more decentralized
> American
> system is pretty clear.
Do you usually base confident conclusions about complicated questions on
a single comparison? Besides, it isn't clear that other developed
countries have "more government" schooling than the U.S., it is clear
that they are different in other ways, and it is pretty clear that the
performance of the U.S. system declined sharply about the time it became
much less decentralized. As best I remember the figures, during a period
of about twenty years ending in 1960, the average number of pupils per
school district went up twelve fold. During the next decade or two, per
pupil real expenditure went up sharply, outcome measures went down
sharply.
> > West, in _Education and the Industrial Revolution_, actually looked at
> > the question (for England in the 19th century) and was unable to find
> > any. Literacy was rising before government got involved, the rise
> > continued after government got involved, no observable change in the
> > pattern. He could not even find a statistically significant change in
> > the share of national income going to schooling from before there was
> > any government involvement to the end of the century, with a full scale
> > system of compulsory state schooling. Nor was there much difference
> > between average years of schooling for English working class kids c.
> > 1830 (before any involvement) and Prussian kids in the contemporary
> > compulsory, public Prussian system.
> Look world wide, look at efforts by UNESCO. I think government got involved
> because it was needed to really spread literacy, to meet the growing demand.
No doubt that is what they claim. West offers evidence for a rather
different explanation of the government takeover of schooling in Britain
during the 19th century.
> But
> of course all it can be is a correlation. Causality seems reasonable to
> assume to
> me, certainly negative causality (to say government makes things worse) seems
> unreasonable.
Despite your having never looked at any evidence on the question?
> It seems to fit evidence around the world in comparative governments and
> various
> regions. I see no evidence to the contrary.
I don't think you have offered any evidence. For the developed world,
have you actually looked at the trend of literacy starting, say, a
century before government became involved in schooling? If not, all you
are saying is that over the last century or two both literacy and
government involvement in schooling rose. But during that period real
incomes rose too, by an enormous amount--which would account for the
increase in literacy. Quality of housing went up a lot too--with very
little government involvement, at least in the U.S. and Britain.
In any case, it's nice having a conventional liberal to argue with, as
a change from the various varieties of
anarchists/socialists/communists/or whatever. Reminds me of the old
days.
You might enjoy reading Sowell's _Vision of the Anointed_. I've only
read the beginning, but I suspect it would be an uncomfortable and
interesting book for someone with your particular position.
In the first chapter, Sowell runs through three situations with the same
structure.
A. Liberals declare there is a crisis. In fact, insofar as the problem
is measurable, it has been declining.
B. Major changes are proposed to deal with the crisis. Opponents predict
outcome X, supporters predict outcome Y.
C. The changes are implemented. X occurs.
D. Proponents continue to believe they were right, speak with pride of
their virtuous acts in pushing the changes, etc.
So far as I can tell, he is right in all three cases--while one might
argue, after the fact, that X occurred for some different reason, in
each case the outcome was strikingly closer to what the critics
predicted than what the proponents predicted.
My one reservation about his argument is the suspicion that one could
probably find a fourth case (and possibly more) with the same structure
but different protagonists. An obvious candidate is Vietnam--we withdrew
and the dominoes didn't fall.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
Scott Erb <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
> David Friedman wrote:
> > I assumed that when you wrote "the complexity defies" you didn't merely
> > mean "the system is complex and it defies," but were implying "because
> > the system is complex, it defies." I therefore pointed out that there
> > are lots of complex systems which end up in corner solutions--i.e. black
> > or white outcomes. So you can't conclude from the complexity of the
> > problem that the solution isn't, in some respects, a simple one.
>
> I mean the complexity of this system, plus our inability to observe just
> parts of
> it, run controlled experiments, and eliminate the impact of perspective on
> our
> interpretation of events, I can't see how we can have a black and white
> conclusion. I'm sorry my wording was imprecise.
I don't follow your amended version either. Whatever solution we come up
with, the problems you mention are reasons to be unsure whether that is
the correct solution. But that doesn't mean that our best guess is a
mixed system rather than a "black and white" conclusion.
You seem to be confusing "black and white" in the sense of "I am
absolutely certain my conclusion is correct" with "black and white" in
the sense of "my conclusion is that our best system is a pure
form"--anarcho-capitalism being one example.
In the first sense of black and white, I suggest that your views are
rather more black and white than mine are--as demonstrated by your
responding to my comments on education with "How can you doubt it??!!!!"
and "Causality seems reasonable to assume to me, certainly negative
causality (to say government makes things worse) seems unreasonable."
You appear absolutely convinced that your views are true, even on
subjects (such as the history of schooling and literacy) that you do not
appear to know very much about--subjects where you are simply adopting
the conventional view.
> > You are confusing two quite differrent questions--whether the reality is
> > complex and dynamic, and whether it has no easy solutions. As I pointed
> > out above, complex dynamic systems sometimes have simple solutions. A
> > crystal, for example.
> I guess I don't see how that is analogous to social and political systems.
> cheers, scott
What argument tells you that a complex and dynamic system has to have a
complicated solution? We know it isn't true for all systems--how do you
know it is true for social and political systems?
Highway traffic is a complex and dynamic system. The rule "you must stop
at a red light" is a simple rule. Do you conclude that that rule must be
wrong?
> PS: I was going to respond to your e-mail, but left it on my office computer.
> Is
> it my posts from my verizon account which get small print, or my maine.edu
> account? Thanks.
Your latest post was from the verizon account and in normal print. I'm
afraid I didn't notice what account the earlier posts in small print
were from.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
Scott Erb <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
> David Friedman wrote:
> > > There was, to be sure, more
> > > equality throughout the system than in most places,
> >
> > How do you know? The state controlled the statistics. It was clearly in
> > their interest to say there was a lot of equality.
>
> I've studied the region quite a bit, and have visited Russia, former East
> Germany, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. It seems the consensus view
> among those who study the region, but if you have evidence to the contrary,
> let me know.
> > I don't know either--my impression is based mostly on _The Russians_.
> > One of the points it mentioned was that you needed permission to move to
> > Moscow, and that there were stories of people who set up fake marriages
> > in order to get that permission. That, and other details in the book,
> > suggested that the inter-regional inequality was enormously higher than
> > in the U.S.
> Oh yeah, that's certainly true, and much more true now than then. Moscovites
> were better off, and different regions had different standards. That is more
> a function of the huge size of Russia than the system; smaller East bloc
> states had some differences between capital cities and the country sides, but
> it was arguably less inequality than before. The Communists subsidized rural
> regions and they have gotten much worse since. Interregional inequality is
> immense now in Russia, much worse than in the USSR.
But the U.S. is also huge, and has relatively small interregional
differences. Your original statement was that there was "more equality
throughout the system than in most places." Presumably "most places"
includes the U.S.
You might argue that you really meant "most places at comparable stages
of economic development." I'm pretty sure interregional differnces were
bigger in the 19th century, presumably because transport was more
expensive. I don't know if they were as big as they seem to have been in
the Soviet Union, though.
> > How do you know there was an initial spurt? Again, aren't you relying on
> > their statistics? We now know that their official statistics were lies
> > at the end--why assume they were ever true?
>
> Russia clearly modernized and built a huge industrial base, that is
> undeniable.
But Russia was modernizing and developing in the last decades of the
Czars, too. It seems to have done much worse thereafter than quite a lot
of countries (Japan is the most obvious example) that started at a
similar level c. WWI (you will remember that the Japanese naval victory
over the Russians in the Russo-Japanese war astonished everyone).
> Also growth did occur early after WWII, not all statistics were
> lies, and KGB statistics were very good (and a lot of that information is
> coming out now). By your logic we can't make ANY claims about the Soviet
> economy because the statistics weren't credible.
I would be cautious of any claims that can't be checked by evidence
other than Soviet statistics.
> But we can look at general
> conditions, output, and evidence, and make educated guesses on what to make
> of statistics.
And looking at general conditions after the collapse of the USSR, we saw
a much poorer contry than almost all the experts thought was there. G.
Warren Nutter was, so far as I know, the only American economist whose
estimates were close, and he was regarded by everyone else as strikingly
underestimating the Soviet economy. He was trying to work from available
data other than the official statistics.
> > My impression from a variety of sources is that the communist states,
> > despite all their talk about making sacrifices now to build up the
> > economy, were actually living on capital. That fits the condition of the
> > housing stock.
> > Suppose you are Stalin and you want people to believe you are doing a
> > good job of running the economy. You can't actually deliver bread and
> > butter and clothing and housing, because you are actually doing a very
> > bad job of running the economy. So instead you tell people that although
> > life is hard now, that is because you are diverting resources to long
> > run objectives--building up the industrial base. By telling them that,
> > you switch your claim to one they cannot check--which means you can get
> > away with making it for longer.
> Life conditions improved dramatically for the average Russian after the
> revolution, and especially by the sixties they had a much better standard of
> living. If the West didn't exist, it might have been thought to be
> successful.
Did conditions improve more rapidly than they had been improving from
1880-1910? My not very expert impression is that the answer was no.
Presumably, if they knew nothing about the West, they would have
credited their government for technological and medical progress most of
which was borrowed from the West. But what is the evidence that they
were doing better than, or even as well as, other developing countries
at a similar stage of development? Clearly they had better PR than those
countries, but that isn't the same thing.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Scott Erb
David Friedman wrote:
> In article <3AD1D059...@maine.edu>,
> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
> > I'd only note that the opportunities have increased with the advent of a
> > mixed economy,
> > suggesting that a balance between government and business has produced the
> > most optimal
> > results in history. But certainly the last fifty years have seen in the
> > industrialized
> > west the biggest growth of wealth in the history of the world.
>
> Absolute or percentage? The bigger the base, the bigger the absolute
> value of a given percent increase.
>
> If your claim is that the percent increase in wealth from 1951 to 2001
> is greater than in any previous period, I'm pretty sure it is false,
> although I would have to do some work to prove it. Or were you limiting
> yourself to fifty year periods?
Do the work, if you want.
> A further problem with your "advent of a mixed economy" is that it makes
> it sound as though we were starting with laissez-faire. But the
> situation when Adam Smith wrote in the 18th century was a mixed
> economy--that was a large part of what he was complaining about. From
> about 1840, when England went to free trade, to 1900 was a period of
> unusually high growth, historically speaking--and was the nearest thing
> to an "unmixed" economy in British history. So far as most of the rest
> of the world is concerned, it has almost always had a mixed economy, at
> least since the invention of the nation state, except when the economy
> was almost totally government controlled.
Well, it was then as "unmixed" as any economy ever will be, it's the closest thing
we have for comparison.
> > First, there is that lingering and enduring underdevelopment in the Third
> > World. Up the
> > last few centuries there was never such global disparities,
>
> You can't have a society with per capta income below subsistence for
> very long, so the fact that the world was poor to some degree limited
> inequality. Subject to that, what is the evidence that there weren't
> large differences in how well off people were in different places a few
> hundred years ago?
Are you serious? I suppose I can find a cite for that if you really doubt it.
> > and the economics are such
> > that the only 'comparative advantage' third world countries have is cheap
> > labor and
> > cheap raw materials. It doesn't appear that is enough to give them a shot at
> > competitive development in all but a small minority of cases (and even then
> > the
> > successes are precarious, with other factors giving them an advantage). It
> > could be
> > part of our wealth is due to a type of neo-colonial exploitation of the
> > South.
>
> This makes it sound as though you don't understand what "comparative
> advantage" means. It has nothing to do with "competitive development."
Again, are you kidding? Comparative advantage works between economies of
relatively equal development. There can certainly be cases where a country has NO
comparative advantage vis-a-vis another country, or an advantage in an area that
does not give it long term or even short term benefits. The idea of crude
"everyone benefits" has long been pushed aside.
> The fact that developed countries have different relative costs than
> underdeveloped countries makes each better off than it would be if the
> other didn't exist.
That isn't self-evident.
> Hence a developing country today is in a better
> situation than a developing country two hundred years ago--it is easier
> for it to develop. That doesn't tell us whether it will be growing
> faster or slower than developed countries currently are growing.
First, politics and economics is relative, and we're also looking at very different
circumstances and real world conditions. The abstract theories get thrown out the
window at this point, that's the problem with those who focus too much on abstract
economic theory -- it is just too simplistic, it fails in the real world.
> Here again, it sounds rather as though you are confusing relative and
> absolute welfare.
First, it's all relative. Politics, life, economics, is relative. Second, in
absolute terms things are worse for a large chunk of people than they were before
colonialism, and even before increased trade.
> Suppose that without interaction between developed and
> underdeveloped countries each would be growing at 1% a year, and that
> with interaction the figures are 3% and 2%. Are the developed countries
> "exploiting" the underdeveloped? If not, in what sense is the present
> situation a type of neo-colonial exploitation?
That is a misguided approach. Growth rates are irrelevant as a form of comparison
if there is no contact. An economy can be self-sufficient and self-sustaining with
no growth. There can be no unemployment, stable political systems, and a stable
social structure with no growth. There can be statistical growth that is focused
in the hands of elites along with lack of self-sufficiency, malnourishment, and
political and social instability. In short, growth rates are poor indicators.
Second, the exploitation comes from the structure of the system, the South provides
raw materials, cheap labor, and in so doing does not develop its own economy to the
point where it ever can really compete with the north. In the short term, this
means real exploitation of real humans. And anyone who says its necessary for
people to suffer sweat shop conditions and live in squalor for later development
is, in my opinion, stating a wholly unethical and immoral position. All human life
has dignity, and being part of the global trade system has made many people's lives
extremely horrid.
It's also clear that the relative position of the South vis-a-vis the North has
worsened since 1960, and the prospects for all but a few minority countries who
have other factors going for them are bleak. There are no easy solutions, but it
does seem clear that a lot of our wealth is because we suck out cheap raw materials
and get things made with cheap labor, and THAT is exploitation.
> > > >I don't think the intelligent have a natural right to claim so much wealth
> > > >that
> > > >they deny equal opportunity and liberty for the poor. I don't think this
> > > >gives
> > > >them license to exploit the "less intelligent."
>
> Again, your "claim so much wealth" and "deny equal opportunity" makes it
> sound as though the intelligent are taking something away from the poor.
> Suppose you agreed that the existence of the intelligent made the poor
> better off--but not nearly as much better off as the intelligent are.
> Would you still use the terminology you are using?
You oversimplify far too much, and when one oversimplifies one can find theories to
prove anything, any bias. My point was not that any one person is better or worse
off, only that power and its use can lead to structural differentials that empower
some and constrain others, and these are legitimate to combat. As long as someone
"less intelligent" has true equal opportunity in terms of having access to
education, health care, and other things that are necessary, then if they can't
become as wealthy that's fine. Minimal standards have to be met, otherwise, they
can be poor. But if this starts a process where they kids, perhaps intelligent,
have less chances than the kids of the last generation's intelligent people
(perhaps not so intelligent), then structural power is rearing its ugly head.
> A lot of your rhetoric makes it sound as though you think there is a
> fixed amount of wealth in the world, hence one person getting it denies
> it to someone else. But you obviously know that isn't true; wealth is
> produced.
None of my "rhetoric" is premised on that fact.
> > > I'm not sure what you mean by "exploit". If you mean
> > > "pay them less per hour", we'll have to agree to disagree.
> >
> > Basically it's paying people less than their work is worth just because the
> > market will
> > bear it. The classic example is the industrial revolution when the breakdown
> > of
> > agriculture on the countryside meant no real opportunities there, and people
> > went into
> > towns where the labor supply was so great that industrialists could hire them
> > very
> > cheap. The result was sustinence wages while the profits went completely
> > into the hands
> > of the owners.
>
> Do you have any evidence for this account of the industrial revolution?
Again, are you kidding? Sigh. I'll dig up some cites, but you are asking for
evidence about some of the most basic things.
> If what happened was that people were being pushed off the land into the
> factories, then real wages should have been lower in both than they had
> been in the past. But the available evidence shows the opposite.
> Population was increasing, consumption by the working class of
> "luxuries" such as tea and sugar was increasing, savings by the working
> class was increasing. Take a look at T.S. Ashton's _The Industrial
> Revolution_ for the evidence.
You're looking at aggregate totals, and certainly not denying that many were paid
virtually nothing and living in squalor. That is undeniable. It is also something
that can justifiably lead to revolution if the wealthy keep it up. Luckily, they
got the state to protect and save capitalism from itself through social welfare
programs and regulations to prevent competition from turning into monopolies and
oligarchies circumventing market mechanisms. Markets aren't magic, they don't
function like some perfect solution to all life's problems. That would be a very
naive position, one based totally on unviable assumptions and abstract theory.
Reality involves politics, relative measures in social life, and social conflict.
Ironically, both Marx and hard core capitalists in their economic determinism
overlooked those facts. Two extremes whose mistakes mirrored each other.
> Incidentally, do you have any figures for what fraction of the revenue
> of factories in the 19th century went to profits? Your rhetoric makes it
> sound like 90%; my guess would be more like 10%, but I don't have
> numbers readily available.
>
> > > Now let's skip asking what "rights" if any a person might have and
> > > skip to the metaquestion, who decides what right if any a person
> > > might have. If "society" decides, then of course there are no rights
> > > at all, since society can always decide "that isn't a right".
>
> > OBVIOUSLY it is a societal decision!!!!
>
> I think "societal decision" is a misleading metaphor, since nobody is
> actually deciding it.
Collective decisions are made many ways; commonly, shared norms and cultural
standards have been decided on amorphously, in a way not easily tracable. But
those are still strong social structures that shape social reality.
> Among the many things determining what positive
> rights people have (i.e. what they in fact can do, as distinguished from
> the normative question of what they should be free to do) are
> technological factors. Public key encryption increases free speech
> rights; good surveillance technology plus speech to text software plus
> modern information processing decreases them. But the people who
> invented those technologies weren't "deciding" to have more or less free
> speech.
Collective decisions are the sum of many small decisions, plus the power relations
that shape their impact on society. You can't trace them to one person, but
obviously their impact is just as real.
> Positive rights are the outcome of a complicated interacting system.
> People can try to influence it in various ways, but the fact that we
> have a particular outcome doesn't mean that everybody, or even anybody,
> wanted that outcome.
True, outcomes are collective choices made without regard to any particular
individuals' desire for what the outcome should be. All play a role, all are
co-constructors of the world, but the construction is a collective product.
David Friedman
Scott Erb <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
> David Friedman wrote:
> > If your claim is that the percent increase in wealth from 1951 to 2001
> > is greater than in any previous period, I'm pretty sure it is false,
> > although I would have to do some work to prove it. Or were you limiting
> > yourself to fifty year periods?
>
> Do the work, if you want.
You haven't yet told me what your claim is. And if you are making it,
you presumably already have the data to support it, so why not start by
pointing me at those data?
> > A further problem with your "advent of a mixed economy" is that it makes
> > it sound as though we were starting with laissez-faire. But the
> > situation when Adam Smith wrote in the 18th century was a mixed
> > economy--that was a large part of what he was complaining about. From
> > about 1840, when England went to free trade, to 1900 was a period of
> > unusually high growth, historically speaking--and was the nearest thing
> > to an "unmixed" economy in British history. So far as most of the rest
> > of the world is concerned, it has almost always had a mixed economy, at
> > least since the invention of the nation state, except when the economy
> > was almost totally government controlled.
>
> Well, it was then as "unmixed" as any economy ever will be, it's the closest
> thing we have for comparison.
And it did a spectacular job of raising the standard of living of the
population. It's true that even at the end of the period, people were
poor compared to us, a century later--but they were much better off than
at the beginning of the period.
> > You can't have a society with per capta income below subsistence for
> > very long, so the fact that the world was poor to some degree limited
> > inequality. Subject to that, what is the evidence that there weren't
> > large differences in how well off people were in different places a few
> > hundred years ago?
> Are you serious? I suppose I can find a cite for that if you really doubt
> it.
More precisely, I am curious about the evidence. Generally speaking,
getting economic statistics for anything more than a couple of centuries
back is hard to impossible. My casual impression is that there were
substantial differences, but I could be wrong.
> > > and the economics are such
> > > that the only 'comparative advantage' third world countries have is cheap
> > > labor and
> > > cheap raw materials. It doesn't appear that is enough to give them a
> > > shot at
> > > competitive development in all but a small minority of cases (and even
> > > then the
> > > successes are precarious, with other factors giving them an advantage).
> > > It could be
> > > part of our wealth is due to a type of neo-colonial exploitation of the
> > > South.
> > This makes it sound as though you don't understand what "comparative
> > advantage" means. It has nothing to do with "competitive development."
>
> Again, are you kidding? Comparative advantage works between economies of
> relatively equal development. There can certainly be cases where a country
> has NO
> comparative advantage vis-a-vis another country, or an advantage in an area
> that
> does not give it long term or even short term benefits. The idea of crude
> "everyone benefits" has long been pushed aside.
The sentence "there can certainly be cases where a country has NO
comparative advantage vis-a-vis another country" is an almost certain
demonstration that you don't know what the term means. It sounds as
though your underlying theory of trade is absolute advantage--the
dominant view of the 18th century, thorougly demolished by Ricardo at
the beginning of the 19th.
If you feel like it, explain what the term "comparative advantage"
means. For a shorter version, tell me if it is possible for country A to
have commparative advantage with regard to B while B does not have
comparative advantage with regard to A.
> > The fact that developed countries have different relative costs than
> > underdeveloped countries makes each better off than it would be if the
> > other didn't exist.
> That isn't self-evident.
Of course it isn't self-evident. It is the result of an analysis worked
out by one of the smartest people in the history of economics. But he
published it almost two hundred years ago, so you can take a free ride
on his work--if you are willing to go to the trouble.
> > Hence a developing country today is in a better
> > situation than a developing country two hundred years ago--it is easier
> > for it to develop. That doesn't tell us whether it will be growing
> > faster or slower than developed countries currently are growing.
> First, politics and economics is relative, and we're also looking at very
> different
> circumstances and real world conditions. The abstract theories get thrown
> out the
> window at this point, that's the problem with those who focus too much on
> abstract
> economic theory -- it is just too simplistic, it fails in the real world.
You can't know that, since you quite obviously don't understand the
economic theory you think you are attacking.
> > Here again, it sounds rather as though you are confusing relative and
> > absolute welfare.
> First, it's all relative. Politics, life, economics, is relative.
I don't know what those words mean, and I doubt you do. Are you really
saying that you would rather be in the 90th percentile of the income
distribution in England in 1800 than in the 80th percentile today? That
is what you would be saying if you really meant the sentence above.
> Second, in
> absolute terms things are worse for a large chunk of people than they were
> before colonialism, and even before increased trade.
What's your evidence? We have pretty good data from about the end of
WWII on, and those data show conditions in the third world trending
pretty steadily upwards--as measured by per capita calorie consumption,
life expectancy and the like.
> > Suppose that without interaction between developed and
> > underdeveloped countries each would be growing at 1% a year, and that
> > with interaction the figures are 3% and 2%. Are the developed countries
> > "exploiting" the underdeveloped? If not, in what sense is the present
> > situation a type of neo-colonial exploitation?
>
> That is a misguided approach. Growth rates are irrelevant as a form of
> comparison if there is no contact.
Which simply evades the question I'm asking. Replace my growth rate
figures with some measure of fixed standard of living. Then answer the
question.
> Second, the exploitation comes from the structure of the system, the South
> provides
> raw materials, cheap labor, and in so doing does not develop its own economy
> to the
> point where it ever can really compete with the north. In the short term,
> this
> means real exploitation of real humans. And anyone who says its necessary
> for
> people to suffer sweat shop conditions and live in squalor for later
> development
> is, in my opinion, stating a wholly unethical and immoral position. All
> human life
> has dignity, and being part of the global trade system has made many people's
> lives
> extremely horrid.
So you assert, but it doesn't happen to be true. You have lots of
self-righteous rhetoric, but so far no evidence that you are actually
familiar with any relevant data, and very clear evidence that you don't
understand the economic theories you think you are rejecting because
they are too simplistic.
> It's also clear that the relative position of the South vis-a-vis the North
> has worsened since 1960,
Might well be true--but so far I haven't gotten you to make a clear
statement as to whether it is absolute or relative position that matters.
> and the prospects for all but a few minority countries who
> have other factors going for them are bleak.
Despite the fact that conditions in the the third world have been
improving for fifty years or so--i.e. for as long as we have good data?
> > Again, your "claim so much wealth" and "deny equal opportunity" makes it
> > sound as though the intelligent are taking something away from the poor.
> > Suppose you agreed that the existence of the intelligent made the poor
> > better off--but not nearly as much better off as the intelligent are.
> > Would you still use the terminology you are using?
> You oversimplify far too much, and when one oversimplifies one can find
> theories to prove anything, any bias.
So far I'm not proving anything--I'm trying to get you to think clearly
and clearly state your claims, since until you do so it is hard to argue
with them.
> My point was not that any one person is better or worse
> off, only that power and its use can lead to structural differentials that
> empower
> some and constrain others, and these are legitimate to combat. As long as
> someone
> "less intelligent" has true equal opportunity in terms of having access to
> education, health care, and other things that are necessary, then if they
> can't
> become as wealthy that's fine. Minimal standards have to be met, otherwise,
> they
> can be poor. But if this starts a process where they kids, perhaps
> intelligent,
> have less chances than the kids of the last generation's intelligent people
> (perhaps not so intelligent), then structural power is rearing its ugly head.
I think I give up. You keep spewing out lots of rhetorical verbiage,
instead of actually answering the question I am asking. Is the relevant
issue whether the kids "have less chances than the kids of the last
generation's intelligent people" or is the issue whether the kids have
less chances than they would have had if the rich hadn't become rich?
> > If what happened was that people were being pushed off the land into the
> > factories, then real wages should have been lower in both than they had
> > been in the past. But the available evidence shows the opposite.
> > Population was increasing, consumption by the working class of
> > "luxuries" such as tea and sugar was increasing, savings by the working
> > class was increasing. Take a look at T.S. Ashton's _The Industrial
> > Revolution_ for the evidence.
> You're looking at aggregate totals, and certainly not denying that many were
> paid virtually nothing and living in squalor.
Your claim is about changes over time. In 1800, lots of people were, by
our standards, living in squalor. In 1840 ditto, in 1880 ditto. But you
believe in a version of history acccording to which the number should
have been increasing. In fact it was decreasing. Hence your version of
history is false. So you should stop making confident pronouncement
based on it.
> That is undeniable. It is also something
> that can justifiably lead to revolution if the wealthy keep it up.
If the wealthy keep what up? Given output in 1840, there wasn't any
system that would have resulted in everyone living what you consider a
decent life. But the conditions of the mass of the population were in
fact increasing pretty steadily from about 1840 on (I'm talking about
England). You seem unwilling either to produce evidence that that wasn't
true, or to look at the evidence I cited that it was, or to revise your
picture of history to take account of the facts.
> Luckily, they
> got the state to protect and save capitalism from itself through social
> welfare
> programs and regulations to prevent competition from turning into monopolies
> and oligarchies circumventing market mechanisms.
That's your story, shared with lots of other people who share your
political views and historical ignorance, but so far you have given no
reason why anyone else should believe it.
> > > OBVIOUSLY it is a societal decision!!!!
> > I think "societal decision" is a misleading metaphor, since nobody is
> > actually deciding it.
>
> Collective decisions are made many ways; commonly, shared norms and cultural
> standards have been decided on amorphously, in a way not easily tracable.
> But
> those are still strong social structures that shape social reality.
I didn't object to the claim that they were important, I objected to the
claim that they were decisions.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Scott Erb
David Friedman wrote:
Again, that would not be a situation that would lead to the structural advantages
unless they came in contact with each other and John used his position to FORCE Bob
to be a servant or a slave, or to bribe people not have dealings with Bob, or to
somehow limit Bob. All of this would be individual, and would not touch the
structural concerns I have. Structural deals with the development of social
classes and constraints and limitations that exist by virtue of one's place in
society. If people have no interactions, there is no society, there is no
structure, and my concerns are not relevant.
> You might reply that all this is acceptable because it doesn't meet your
> "if they possess equal talent and effort" condition. But now consider
> John Jr. and Bob Jr. John Jr. inherits his father's orchard and life of
> leisure. So John senior, by planting the orchard, limited Bob Jr.'s
> opportunity to achieve outcomes equal to those of John Jr., even if Bob
> Jr. has the same effort and ability as Bob Jr.
Again, if they aren't interacting or in the same society, it's irrelevant. But the
real world doesn't deal with discrete individuals whose power and wealth don't
impact others. The interaction and the social impact of that power is where
structural power comes into play.
> Now do you see what bothers me about your position? You seem to confuse
> the claim "A limited B's opportunities" in the sense of "reduced the
> range of things B cold do" with the claim "A limited B's opportunities
> to achieve equal outcomes with C," where the latter might mean "A
> improved C's opportunities without at all restricting B's."
No, I'm not dealing with such simplified specific individual situations, I'm
dealing with the vast array of complex social structures and differentials of power
in an interdependent and interacting society.
> > > Why should my freedom be defined by the choices other people have?
>
> > It is inevitable. Freedom is always defined in a social context, no one ever
> > gets
> > to do whatever they want. You can only choose within your circumstances, and
> > those
> > circumstances are created by the choices of others around you. If
> > circumstances
> > are unjustly limited due to structural power differentials, then it is just
> > for
> > collective or political action to try to work against that injustice.
>
> But you just assumed your conclusion via "unjustly."
I've defined that earlier in this thread...I could try to find my basic position
and repost it, I think I made those definitions, etc., before you started
replying. I'll try to do that later today or tomorrow.
> If A does something that increases C's opportunities while neither
> increasing nor decreasing B's opportunities, has he "unjustly limited"
> B? Certainly he has made it harder for B to achieve the same outcome as
> C.
Again, those are not the things of social structure. Social structure involves
relative power of actors vis-a-vis each other to constrain or empower the other.
Again, I don't seem to be getting across the idea of structure well: it goes beyond
those simplified ideas of one individual doing one thing, but involve what happens
in a complex society where groups of people who succeed are able to build a
situation where they (and their children, etc.) have better education, better
health care, secure opportunities, and can develop a class system where at birth by
their position in society they have structural advantages relative to others. That
creates systemic or structural inequities in opportunity which are not naturally
addressed by market mechanisms due to power differentials. That limits the liberty
of those who are structurally disadvantaged.
> > But if you go back to the case of the man who starts a business, makes a
> > > lot of money, and leaves the business to his son, by doing that he
> > > hasn't reduced the opportunities of other people--the business wouldn't
> > > be there to be run if it weren't for him.
> >
> > I disagree. I think that can over time lead to structural advantages if
> > those who
> > have wealth can use that wealth to increase their chances of success without
> > having
> > to undertake as much effort, while others might have less education, poor
> > health
> > care, and will require considerably more chances for success. You don't
> > destroy
> > the business, you just use some progressive taxation to assure that the
> > impact of
> > structural differentials of power don't create long term class differences.
>
> Again, does the structural advantage make it harder for the poor to
> achieve some given level X, or does it merely make it harder for them to
> do as well as the rich? These are two wholly different claims, one of
> which is surely true and one probably false.
The point is that they have unequal opportunities relative to each other. That
means that one side is advantaged by social structure in a way that gives it more
options and possibilities than the other; the other must work much harder to
achieve the same sorts of opportunities. Certainly it is still possible for the
one with less power to achieve some kind of gain, but just being able to become
better off doesn't negate the negative impact of structure. Where there is unequal
opportunity due to structural power differentials, that limits the liberty and
ability to succeed of those disadvantaged relative to those who are advantaged.
> > > Yet you claim that that sort
> > > of action, repeated, reduces the freedom of the people who haven't
> > > become rich.
> > >
> > > So to make your argument, you have to either claim that:
> > >
> > > 1. Any time someone takes acts that increase the opportunities for one
> > > person, he automatically decrease those for others--which is obviously
> > > false, or ...
> > >
> > > 2. Increasing opportunity for some is a reduction in the freedom of the
> > > others, even if it doesn't reduce their opportunities
> >
> > No, you seem to miss the entire point: only if the power and wealth that
> > results
> > from actions leads to a situation where one class of people is structurally
> > advantaged vis-a-vis another class in terms of what they can achieve due to
> > differences in opportunity (education differences, health care, etc.) then
> > acts to
> > promote true equal opportunity are just to promote maximum liberty. It only
> > becomes a problem if the power and wealth generated by choices leads to
> > structures
> > that create classes where there are real differences.
>
> But an action that makes me better off creates a real difference between
> me and you even if it doesn't make you worse off. So your language
> immediately above seems to imply my version 2 above.
Again, my concern only kicks in when power differentials create structural
advantages and disadvantages. Crude differences in material outcome are on their
face irrelevant, I don't mind that some people are rich and others aren't. I do
mind if the rich use their power to exploit the others, or if that wealth creates
social classes that are structurally advantaged. Then collective intervention is,
I believe, just and proper.
> I'm trying to get you to distinguish between the case where "the power
> and wealth" results in giving some people more opportunities than they
> would otherwise have had without reducing the opportunities of others
> and the case where it results in increasing the opportunities of some
> and decreasing the opportunities of others.
And the answer remains the same: neither of those two reflect my claim. In the
latter, there is a clear case of exploitation, and a reason for intervention. In
the former, it can become a problem over all in society if those with the
advantages use them to create structural advantage for themselves and their
children, developing into social classes with some advantaged simply by their place
in society (not their individual actions) and others disadvantaged relative to each
other (again, politics is relative, if a the wealthy have an average income going
from 10 to 100 over two generations, while the poor go from 1 to 3, then the poor
are relatively worse off than before).
> Both of those represent
> "structures that create classes where there are real differences." But
> only one is a case where, in any sense I find meaningful, the freedom of
> some has been reduced.
If freedom and power expands for one group and doesn't expand at the same rate for
another, they have relatively less opportunity.
-snip-
> Do you usually base confident conclusions about complicated questions on
> a single comparison? Besides, it isn't clear that other developed
> countries have "more government" schooling than the U.S., it is clear
> that they are different in other ways, and it is pretty clear that the
> performance of the U.S. system declined sharply about the time it became
> much less decentralized. As best I remember the figures, during a period
> of about twenty years ending in 1960, the average number of pupils per
> school district went up twelve fold. During the next decade or two, per
> pupil real expenditure went up sharply, outcome measures went down
> sharply.
We'll have to agree to disagree about government in education, though I'll see what
I can find to especially show how UNESCO programs helped enhance literacy world
wide, and I know I have information somewhere on Germany and Japan. In any event,
we've seen a massive increase in education over the last 100 years, and government
has been very involved. Perhaps its possible that it would have happened absent
government, but I find that unlikely. More likely is that the increases before
more government involvement led to such a demand for education that it created a
political demand for the government to provide it.
> > > West, in _Education and the Industrial Revolution_, actually looked at
> > > the question (for England in the 19th century) and was unable to find
> > > any. Literacy was rising before government got involved, the rise
> > > continued after government got involved, no observable change in the
> > > pattern. He could not even find a statistically significant change in
> > > the share of national income going to schooling from before there was
> > > any government involvement to the end of the century, with a full scale
> > > system of compulsory state schooling. Nor was there much difference
> > > between average years of schooling for English working class kids c.
> > > 1830 (before any involvement) and Prussian kids in the contemporary
> > > compulsory, public Prussian system.
>
> > Look world wide, look at efforts by UNESCO. I think government got involved
> > because it was needed to really spread literacy, to meet the growing demand.
>
> No doubt that is what they claim. West offers evidence for a rather
> different explanation of the government takeover of schooling in Britain
> during the 19th century.\
I really have trouble with the idea we can draw too many conclusions from one study
of 19th century Britain. I'll see what I can dig up, but I'm more interested in
recent developments.
> > But
> > of course all it can be is a correlation. Causality seems reasonable to
> > assume to
> > me, certainly negative causality (to say government makes things worse) seems
> > unreasonable.
>
> Despite your having never looked at any evidence on the question?
I have, I just don't recall exactly where and what...this isn't an issue I have to
deal with a lot. What I've read is comparative analyses of German, Japanese and
American education. I'll check with some colleagues who are Professors in the
Education department, perhaps they can provide me with some info.
> > It seems to fit evidence around the world in comparative governments and
> > various
> > regions. I see no evidence to the contrary.
>
> I don't think you have offered any evidence. For the developed world,
> have you actually looked at the trend of literacy starting, say, a
> century before government became involved in schooling? If not, all you
> are saying is that over the last century or two both literacy and
> government involvement in schooling rose. But during that period real
> incomes rose too, by an enormous amount--which would account for the
> increase in literacy. Quality of housing went up a lot too--with very
> little government involvement, at least in the U.S. and Britain.
Well, that's not evidence that the private sector would have educated just as well,
at best you're saying it might still have happened. Obviously, we can't know for
sure. Usually, though, governments do things in response to political demands.
It's a lot easier to have a private education system when a wealthy elite are the
only ones being educated. But when you want to educate workers and others who may
not have much money, I can't see how a private system can do it.
> In any case, it's nice having a conventional liberal to argue with, as
> a change from the various varieties of
> anarchists/socialists/communists/or whatever. Reminds me of the old
> days.
>
> You might enjoy reading Sowell's _Vision of the Anointed_. I've only
> read the beginning, but I suspect it would be an uncomfortable and
> interesting book for someone with your particular position.
>
> In the first chapter, Sowell runs through three situations with the same
> structure.
>
> A. Liberals declare there is a crisis. In fact, insofar as the problem
> is measurable, it has been declining.
>
> B. Major changes are proposed to deal with the crisis. Opponents predict
> outcome X, supporters predict outcome Y.
>
> C. The changes are implemented. X occurs.
>
> D. Proponents continue to believe they were right, speak with pride of
> their virtuous acts in pushing the changes, etc.
>
> So far as I can tell, he is right in all three cases--while one might
> argue, after the fact, that X occurred for some different reason, in
> each case the outcome was strikingly closer to what the critics
> predicted than what the proponents predicted.
>
> My one reservation about his argument is the suspicion that one could
> probably find a fourth case (and possibly more) with the same structure
> but different protagonists. An obvious candidate is Vietnam--we withdrew
> and the dominoes didn't fall.
I'd probably agree more with his argument than you might suspect. I don't think
American liberals have done a good job dealing with structural differentials of
power as I've described them, they tend to only throw money at problem areas.
That hasn't worked real well. Also the size of the American government and the
scope of its efforts (as well as its imperialist foreign policy) really bothers
me. Except perhaps for McGovern, who never actually governed, the foreign policy
positions of Democrats have been in my opinion no better than of Republicans.
Although we are arguing about the structural power differentials I believe inherent
in unregulated capitalism, I also think that governmental power is extremely
dangerous, and has to be held accountable through more openness and less
centralization. A lot of that is anathema to many liberals. So I end up being
skeptical of both capitalism and governmental power, and certainly an extreme to
either side. The best I can do is say "there should be a balance," but its hard to
define the balance, and in these discussions I hope to see creative ideas.
I'm a tad busy now, so it may take me a couple days to reply to your next posts
(but I will). I also want, before we go much further in the discussion read some
of the web stuff you have been mentioning; so far, the give and take have been fast
and I'm afraid I'm misunderstanding precisely where you're coming from. I'll post
responses to the posts from last night I've already received, but then take some
time and read what you've webposted and save any of your responses to get to later
in the week. Thanks for the good discusison.
cheers, scott
Scott Erb
David Friedman wrote:
> In article <3AD225C2...@mail.verizon.net>,
> Scott Erb <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > David Friedman wrote:
>
> > > I assumed that when you wrote "the complexity defies" you didn't merely
> > > mean "the system is complex and it defies," but were implying "because
> > > the system is complex, it defies." I therefore pointed out that there
> > > are lots of complex systems which end up in corner solutions--i.e. black
> > > or white outcomes. So you can't conclude from the complexity of the
> > > problem that the solution isn't, in some respects, a simple one.
> >
> > I mean the complexity of this system, plus our inability to observe just
> > parts of
> > it, run controlled experiments, and eliminate the impact of perspective on
> > our
> > interpretation of events, I can't see how we can have a black and white
> > conclusion. I'm sorry my wording was imprecise.
>
> I don't follow your amended version either. Whatever solution we come up
> with, the problems you mention are reasons to be unsure whether that is
> the correct solution. But that doesn't mean that our best guess is a
> mixed system rather than a "black and white" conclusion.
I believe it does. I have studied social science my whole adult life, which still
is only about twenty years, but in every area I've looked at, from economics to
philosophy of science, to comparative political systems and theories of war,
international political economy, etc., the most impotent and failed theories are
those which started with absolute black and white assumptions and offered a
universal approach to defining the problem and prescribing the theory.
The dangers are many. The problem of perspective usually impacts the assumptions.
In economic theory assumptions of rationality and interest are often defined by the
individuals own biases towards what a rational choice is and how interests are
defined. As I noted, interests get constructed by individuals in many different
ways. You can either say interests are subjective, which makes such assumptions
meaningless (you can interpret all acts by all people as in their self interest, as
you assume their choice reflected self-interest), or you can define interests as
objective, whereby the analyst creates a standard informed by his or her own
cultural and psychological biases.
Complexity brings in not just different cultures and systems, but also the way
power permeates all social relations, and informs and shapes how economic outcomes
are formed. It shapes markets, defying the simplistic notion that individual
choices made "without coercion" are even possible for most people in a complex
market system. No theory can take all this into account, it rests on vast
simplifications. Hence, from my experience in looking at how a lot of people
develop really elegant and sophisticated theories, and how none of them work in a
complex world because of the problems inherent in doing social science, I don't
think theory can provide the solution. Also, given the importance of culture and
our ability to remold social reality over time, a "right" solution in one time and
place might not work in another.
> You seem to be confusing "black and white" in the sense of "I am
> absolutely certain my conclusion is correct" with "black and white" in
> the sense of "my conclusion is that our best system is a pure
> form"--anarcho-capitalism being one example.
>
> In the first sense of black and white, I suggest that your views are
> rather more black and white than mine are--as demonstrated by your
> responding to my comments on education with "How can you doubt it??!!!!"
I never said nothing -- no fact, no specific relationship can be black and white
(though certainly anything can be doubted). I said that given the complexity of
the system a social theory that provides a single black and white answer meant to
cover all cultures over all time as one "best" way fails as it smuggles in the
biases of the theorist, simplifies complex social relationships, ignores the impact
of perspective and culture, and in my experience tends to fail. Marx and others --
early social scientists -- believed such a thing was possible, one grand theory of
what would work best. That belief was their downfall.
> and "Causality seems reasonable to assume to me, certainly negative
> causality (to say government makes things worse) seems unreasonable."
> You appear absolutely convinced that your views are true, even on
> subjects (such as the history of schooling and literacy) that you do not
> appear to know very much about--subjects where you are simply adopting
> the conventional view.
Most people who debate are pretty convinced their view is accurate, in this case I
have seen information about the increase in world literacy in the 20th century
which is directly correlated with government efforts to increase education, and
certainly I've seen, even if I don't have the cite in front of me, information
about how European and Japanese school systems, more centralized and government
controlled than ours, produce better outcomes. Maybe government isn't the causal
factor, but it certainly does not seem to be making matters worse. I've NEVER seen
evidence to suggest that. I've seen evidence that shows that some particular
schools that are run by government bodies perform worse than others, but that
suggests it isn't government that's the main factor.
> > > You are confusing two quite differrent questions--whether the reality is
> > > complex and dynamic, and whether it has no easy solutions. As I pointed
> > > out above, complex dynamic systems sometimes have simple solutions. A
> > > crystal, for example.
>
> > I guess I don't see how that is analogous to social and political systems.
> > cheers, scott
>
> What argument tells you that a complex and dynamic system has to have a
> complicated solution? We know it isn't true for all systems--how do you
> know it is true for social and political systems?
Put it this way: all the evidence I've seen points to the contrary, for the reasons
I describe above. True, that is simply the "conventional" view of social
scientists, but its based on experience and analysis.
> Highway traffic is a complex and dynamic system. The rule "you must stop
> at a red light" is a simple rule. Do you conclude that that rule must be
> wrong?
That is a socially constructed norm, reinforced by law. Certainly you can see
socially constructed norms in domestic and political systems, and they can indeed
be reinforced by law. But that's not the same as a universal theory saying what
system is best, it's a very different thing - the former is a human construct
designed to make traffic flow, the latter is a human theory about what kind of
economic and political system is best.
> > PS: I was going to respond to your e-mail, but left it on my office computer.
> > Is
> > it my posts from my verizon account which get small print, or my maine.edu
> > account? Thanks.
>
> Your latest post was from the verizon account and in normal print. I'm
> afraid I didn't notice what account the earlier posts in small print
> were from.
OK, thanks!
cheers, scott
Scott Erb
David Friedman wrote:
> In article <3AD04B85...@maine.edu>,
> Scott Erb <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
> > David Friedman wrote:
>
> > > It is indeed true that the
> > > conclusion, like most of economics, depends on rationality--in the
> > > economist's sense of the term. But then, in my view, rationality is
> > > still the best assumption we have for predicting the behavior of large
> > > numbers of strangers. You can find some arguments for that claim in the
> > > first chapters of my _Price Theory_ and _Hidden Order_, and a discussion
> > > of an alternative in the draft on evolutionary psychology and economics
> > > on my web pate.
> >
> > There are a number of problems with assuming rationality. ...
>
> > In short, reality is really messy, and assumptions that create a
> > theoretical expectation that things should work out "right" almost
> > always fall apart in the real world.
>
> We have to work on the best theory we have. I agree that the relevant
> (economic) theory is far from perfect, but we don't have anything
> better. That is one of the reasons I am a conservative anarchist; I
> think the sensible policy is to move gradually towards what you think is
> the ideal society, revising your views on the subject as additional data
> come in.
Well, that's the same thing that anarcho-socialists might say too. For me I
think that kind of system is too distant to really theorize about, the social,
political and economic relationships that define a system will be unpredictably
different so far down the line. But I'm at base a pragmatist, and in comparing
different political systems I see a few problem areas that I believe are at the
root of current difficulties: bureaucratic abuse of power, generalized abuse of
centralized power by governments, abuse of financial and economic power by big
business; and (the one we've been debating) the construction of social
structures that overtime create classes where some people are empowered and
others constrained by their place in society. Working to try to mitigate those
to me seems like the best short term option, I'm leery of the long term visions,
though as I respect Ron Allen's anarcho-socialism, I respect your conservative
anarchism. At base you really aren't in disagreement, Ron just thinks people
will voluntarily choose a socialist form of production, you see capitalist
markets being the choice, but each of you recognizes people can choose other
than what you suspect.
> And I don't argue that things will always work out right. If you look at
> the chapter on economics and efficient law that is webbed on my page,
> you will find a discussion of (among other things) market failure in the
> market for legal assent--i.e. reasons why the best set of legal
> institutions I can think of will still sometimes produce bad law. That
> isn't an adequate reason to reject them, given that I think the
> alternatives will produce worse law.
It's all too theoretical, and theories are by definition vast simplifications on
the diverse and multifaceted world of social, political, cultural interactions,
and varying degrees of power agents have within the system. In my experience
the most elegant and sophisticated theories that should work on the drawing
board fall to unanticipated actions and consequences in the real world. It's
all very interesting, but I think in reality markets can and will be
circumvented by those who gain power. Perhaps your system or Ron's system will
work if first the culture and our shared norms develop to reflect a belief in
the core values of those systems. I think a number of systems are POSSIBLE, but
the bottom line is what people choose, and that relies very much on culture and
norms.
> > > > This raises the question of how rationality is defined, what interests
> > > > are,
> > > > etc. Socialists can make the same kind of abstract economic theory.
>
> > > I don't think so. There is a reason why the really smart socialist
> > > economists, such as Lerner, ended up doing neoclassical price theory and
> > > trying to use it to design a set of socialist institutions that would
> > > mimic capitalism.
>
> > You're switching topics here. I'm not attacking markets. I believe
> > that market mechanics is the best way to communicate demand and create
> > flexibility in the system. It certainly is much better than a planned
> > economy. I'm noting only that it is not a perfect way, and relying
> > purely on markets as if they were magic is not a solution to the issue
> > of stopping abuses of liberty on the one hand, or creating a situation
> > of equal opportunity on the other.
>
> I'm not switching topics, and I'm not talking about the virtues of
> markets. I'm talking about the virtues of neoclassical economics. My
> point is that the socialists don't have "the same kind of abstract
> economic theory"--i.e. don't have a theoretical structure of comparable
> sophistication and consistency. My evidence is that the smart socialist
> economists chose to follow Marshall, not Marx.
It's not a black and white choice. Reality is complex. Marx's insights are
very similar in many regards to neo-classical economics, he helped set the
stage. The biggest insight from Marx was on the power of class and social
structure, and his focus on exploitation. His biggest error was
over-determination and his inability to accept democracy. He assumed that if
you get rid of exploitation you'd get a socialist utopia; perhaps, but you don't
get rid of exploitation with a revolution, you'd have to change how people
think. That's politics and culture, and any theory that doesn't recognize the
profound impact of politics and culture is bound to fail. Such theories smuggle
in the author's own cultural and philosophical biases believing those biases to
be human nature or the way other people would think if totally free.
> > >If the father had never started the business that made his
> > > fortune, kids in the ghetto would have been just as badly off.
>
> > Any one person's change probably wouldn't alter the structure much,
> > structures are built on millions of relationships and how they empower
> > and constrain. But overall, the children of each parent are born into
> > structured relationships which give them opportunities and constraints.
> > The inequality of these is an outgrowth of how the system has functioned
> > up until that point.
>
> But that doesn't tell us the sign of the relationships--whether one
> person's change makes things a little worse for another, or a little
> better. My point wasn't that the father who made a fortune only made the
> ghetto child a little worse off, it was that there was no reason to
> think he made him worse off at all. Indeed, there is some reason to
> think he made the ghetto child a little better off, although that wasn't
> the point I was making.
Again, none of that addresses the basics of structural power as outlined.
Structural power is NOT the tracing of the act of one person to the life
condition of another. Structural power is also by definition concerned with
relative relations, not absolute conditions. It is again the creation of
structural discrimination or power differentials that over time constrain a
class of people by virtue of their position in society vis-a-vis another class,
where large groups of people do not have equal opportunity, even if they hold
equal natural talents and engage in equal effort. You can't trace it from one
person to another. It defies reductionist analysis.
> Is your concern with how equal opportunities are or how good
> opportunities are? My claim is that the father who makes a fortune may
> make the opportunities to his son and the ghetto child less equal (by
> improving the opportunities of the former) but he doesn't, typically,
> make the opportunities of the ghetto child worse.
Again, the focus is on where power goes. Power goes to the wealthy, they can
then work to structure the system so that they have relative advantage. Even if
the ghetto people are in absolute terms better off (possible), if their
opportunity is unequal and if their options are limited by the social structure
of society, it is still a situation where structural power is sapping their
liberty and advantaging others.
> It isn't clear whether you are disagreeing with that claim--in which
> case you need more than lots of verbiage about structured relationships
> to answer my argument, which comes down to straightforward economics--or
> whether you agree with my claim, but consider increased inequality in
> itself objectionable, even if it consists entirely of making things
> better for some people without making them worse for others. Which is
> your position?
Hopefully the last few posts have made it clear about structure, as well as the
fact politics deals with relative conditions, not absolutes.
> > I think you're overlooking how linked the system is (indeed, it MUST be,
> > for markets to function), and how the complexity and dynamism of a
> > capitalist economy make it so these structures emerge out of a myriad of
> > small decisions (such as in the tyranny of small decisions) and not
> > tracable on a simple linear line from one person's acts to another.
>
> Neoclassical economics is a theory of how linked the system is, and how
> patterns emerge out of a myriad of small decisions. What is your
> competing theory, and how does it show that the net effect of A making a
> fortune on the market is to make all B-Z a little worse off?
Again, my claim is on power and how structured power differentials limit
opportunity, and by definition I think the relevant question is relative power
and opportunity, not absolutes. Sure, the American poor are wealthy compared to
most people in the third world. But politically their concerns are driven not
by that absolute measure, but by the relative power and conditions vis-a-vis
others in their own society. Saying "you are better off than the folk in
Cameroon," or "thirty years ago your parents had it worse" won't alter power
differential and structural discrimination today. Politics is relative,
inevitably.
cheers, scott
Scott Erb
David Friedman wrote:
> You haven't yet told me what your claim is. And if you are making it,
> you presumably already have the data to support it, so why not start by
> pointing me at those data?
I've made the claim that there has been an unprecidented amount of economic growth
and increases in standards of living since WWII for the industrialized West. GDP
has skyrocketed into the trillions. Trade now is greater than the total world GDP
in 1950. Do you really doubt that? On what basis?
> > Well, it was then as "unmixed" as any economy ever will be, it's the closest
> > thing we have for comparison.
>
> And it did a spectacular job of raising the standard of living of the
> population. It's true that even at the end of the period, people were
> poor compared to us, a century later--but they were much better off than
> at the beginning of the period.
Perhaps, though it was uneven. Clearly the social and political conditions at the
time created political demands which led to more government.
> More precisely, I am curious about the evidence. Generally speaking,
> getting economic statistics for anything more than a couple of centuries
> back is hard to impossible. My casual impression is that there were
> substantial differences, but I could be wrong.
> > Again, are you kidding? Comparative advantage works between economies of
> > relatively equal development. There can certainly be cases where a country
> > has NO
> > comparative advantage vis-a-vis another country, or an advantage in an area
> > that
> > does not give it long term or even short term benefits. The idea of crude
> > "everyone benefits" has long been pushed aside.
>
> The sentence "there can certainly be cases where a country has NO
> comparative advantage vis-a-vis another country" is an almost certain
> demonstration that you don't know what the term means. It sounds as
> though your underlying theory of trade is absolute advantage--the
> dominant view of the 18th century, thorougly demolished by Ricardo at
> the beginning of the 19th.
More precisely as I stated: the only comparative advantage the third world
countries have is in cheap labor the raw materials. They are indeed at absolute
disadvantages vis-a-vis other countries, and often their mode of production, which
is more feudal, is more easily penetrated and exploited by outsiders who use a
capitalist mode of production.
> If you feel like it, explain what the term "comparative advantage"
> means. For a shorter version, tell me if it is possible for country A to
> have commparative advantage with regard to B while B does not have
> comparative advantage with regard to A.
>
> > > The fact that developed countries have different relative costs than
> > > underdeveloped countries makes each better off than it would be if the
> > > other didn't exist.
>
> > That isn't self-evident.
>
> Of course it isn't self-evident. It is the result of an analysis worked
> out by one of the smartest people in the history of economics. But he
> published it almost two hundred years ago, so you can take a free ride
> on his work--if you are willing to go to the trouble.
Except, of course, the problems of underdeveloped countries didn't exist 200 years
ago so that analysis would be of limited value in addressing the real issues that
face third world countries in the 20th century, especially when trade seems to
often make matters worse for real life conditions (even if sometimes it creates
statistical improvements in crude indicators).
> > First, politics and economics is relative, and we're also looking at very
> > different
> > circumstances and real world conditions. The abstract theories get thrown
> > out the
> > window at this point, that's the problem with those who focus too much on
> > abstract
> > economic theory -- it is just too simplistic, it fails in the real world.
>
> You can't know that, since you quite obviously don't understand the
> economic theory you think you are attacking.
Yes I do. I've taken two graduate level courses on International Trade, as well as
courses on International Monetary Policy, The Economics of Non-Renewable Resources,
and the Economics of Social Welfare Systems. I may not always word my posts
perfectly or be sketchy on the details at times, but I understand basic economic
theory.
> > > Here again, it sounds rather as though you are confusing relative and
> > > absolute welfare.
>
> > First, it's all relative. Politics, life, economics, is relative.
>
> I don't know what those words mean, and I doubt you do. Are you really
> saying that you would rather be in the 90th percentile of the income
> distribution in England in 1800 than in the 80th percentile today?
Since that choice does not exist, the question is irrelevant for politics.
Politics deals with relative differences in the here and now. The fact that poor
today have TV's and enough to eat does not mean they should be satisfied with
absolute gains and believe all is fair. They look at their condition relative to
others in society. They always have, always will, that's politics, that's social
life. It's relative.
> That
> is what you would be saying if you really meant the sentence above.
Hardly.
> > Second, in
> > absolute terms things are worse for a large chunk of people than they were
> > before colonialism, and even before increased trade.
>
> What's your evidence?
Again, I can dig up some quotes, but generally scholars believe there was little
malnutrition, there were stable political systems with little political violence
and in general a solid set of social structures before these were penetrated and
destroyed by colonialism. The culture was stripped away or bastardized. One
classic example is the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda. Before colonialism they
intermarried, lived peacefully, and had a stable set of social institutions. Then
colonizers played them off against each other, gave one (Tutsis) relative benefits
in order to gain their support to run their colonies, and soon a rivalry and hatred
arose between the two which continued to the point of a genocide of nearly 1
million Tutsis by Hutus in 1994. Nothing like that was happening pre-colonialism!
> We have pretty good data from about the end of
> WWII on, and those data show conditions in the third world trending
> pretty steadily upwards--as measured by per capita calorie consumption,
> life expectancy and the like.
Do in large part to UN aid, especially agencies like the WHO, FAO, and UNESCO. But
relative to the industrialized North, things have gotten worse, and within these
countries a wealthy elite exists alongside an impoverished poor.
800 million citizens of the world are chronically malnourished, with literacy below
50% in most third world states. World wide this is improving only very slowly; in
Africa the level of malnourished has even increased from 38% in the
mid-seventies to 43% of the population by the mid-nineties. There is enough food in
the world; third world states just don’t have the money to buy it. In the past
decades a global division of labor has developed whereby the advanced states
provide
investment capital and a growing service sector, while lesser developed states
offer cheap labor and raw materials. People in developing nations have already
sacrificed the subsistence farming that had nourished them in the past, often
growing cash
crops to give their state the resources to operate in the world economy, even if
that means more malnutrition at home. It is hard for people in the comfort of the
West to imagine the lifestyle and conditions that are common place in many third
world states;
this maldistribution of wealth is dramatic, and its questionable if the have nots
will be satisfied with their role in an increasingly connected world system.
> > > Suppose that without interaction between developed and
> > > underdeveloped countries each would be growing at 1% a year, and that
> > > with interaction the figures are 3% and 2%. Are the developed countries
> > > "exploiting" the underdeveloped? If not, in what sense is the present
> > > situation a type of neo-colonial exploitation?
> >
> > That is a misguided approach. Growth rates are irrelevant as a form of
> > comparison if there is no contact.
>
> Which simply evades the question I'm asking. Replace my growth rate
> figures with some measure of fixed standard of living. Then answer the
> question.
I think the paragraph above shows the problem. Relative to the first world, things
aren't improving, and in life conditions things are bleak. This has continued for
half a century with no sign of real change. Perhaps the reason is that there is a
structure to the system that creates underdevelopment because of how the North uses
its advantage to set the rules of the game and exploit the south for raw materials
and cheap labor. In any event, such a relative maldistribution of income usually
leads to political unrest. With the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
a North-South conflict could make the old East-West conflict look like small
potatoes.
> > Second, the exploitation comes from the structure of the system, the South
> > provides
> > raw materials, cheap labor, and in so doing does not develop its own economy
> > to the
> > point where it ever can really compete with the north. In the short term,
> > this
> > means real exploitation of real humans. And anyone who says its necessary
> > for
> > people to suffer sweat shop conditions and live in squalor for later
> > development
> > is, in my opinion, stating a wholly unethical and immoral position. All
> > human life
> > has dignity, and being part of the global trade system has made many people's
> > lives
> > extremely horrid.
>
> So you assert, but it doesn't happen to be true. You have lots of
> self-righteous rhetoric, but so far no evidence that you are actually
> familiar with any relevant data, and very clear evidence that you don't
> understand the economic theories you think you are rejecting because
> they are too simplistic.
Again, I certainly understand the economic theories, and have studied developing
countries quite extensively. Accusing me of ignorance, besides being wrong, is
inappropriate in this kind of discussion. I can give you stats for a number of
third world countries, I can explain their political development, and talk about
the problems they face. Some paying half of their budget to rich western banks to
pay interest on loans while many in their own country suffer. Some shifting to
cash crops and taking food crops out of circulation to pay western creditors while
increasing malnutrition at home. You talk about abstract statistics that you don't
provide evidence for either -- you assert they are growing. But look at life
conditions, look how things are worse -- how malnourishment rose in Africa over the
last decades, for instance. These are real problems that cause real pain. When
sweat shops are opened in third world countries it often, like colonialism,
destroys the old social structures and even the old ways of making a living. Sure,
the people in economic stats look better off because they are paid more, but often
their standard of living decreases dramatically.
No, don't accuse me of ignorance on these things just because I don't follow your
interpretation.
> > It's also clear that the relative position of the South vis-a-vis the North
> > has worsened since 1960,
>
> Might well be true--but so far I haven't gotten you to make a clear
> statement as to whether it is absolute or relative position that matters.
The relative position matters in politics, but in absolute terms the figures on
malnourishment and poverty rates show that gains in the third world have been
uneven. In fact, 35% of third world GDP comes from the few NICs in mostly
Southeast Asia, for most things are pretty bleak.
> > and the prospects for all but a few minority countries who
> > have other factors going for them are bleak.
>
> Despite the fact that conditions in the the third world have been
> improving for fifty years or so--i.e. for as long as we have good data?
Why do you think there has been improvement? The one state that has improved, if
you take the third world as a whole, rather than the NICs, is CHINA. They have had
massive growth, and over 300 million people have moved from below the poverty line
to above. They have had more success that the rest of the third world combined
(comparable to the NICs).
> > > Again, your "claim so much wealth" and "deny equal opportunity" makes it
> > > sound as though the intelligent are taking something away from the poor.
> > > Suppose you agreed that the existence of the intelligent made the poor
> > > better off--but not nearly as much better off as the intelligent are.
> > > Would you still use the terminology you are using?
>
> > You oversimplify far too much, and when one oversimplifies one can find
> > theories to prove anything, any bias.
>
> So far I'm not proving anything--I'm trying to get you to think clearly
> and clearly state your claims, since until you do so it is hard to argue
> with them.
I am, but it doesn't reduce to such one person to another person analogies, its a
structural part of a complex social system. Thinking clearly doesn't mean
simplifying, it means being clear on concepts used and what they mean.
> > My point was not that any one person is better or worse
> > off, only that power and its use can lead to structural differentials that
> > empower
> > some and constrain others, and these are legitimate to combat. As long as
> > someone
> > "less intelligent" has true equal opportunity in terms of having access to
> > education, health care, and other things that are necessary, then if they
> > can't
> > become as wealthy that's fine. Minimal standards have to be met, otherwise,
> > they
> > can be poor. But if this starts a process where they kids, perhaps
> > intelligent,
> > have less chances than the kids of the last generation's intelligent people
> > (perhaps not so intelligent), then structural power is rearing its ugly head.
>
> I think I give up. You keep spewing out lots of rhetorical verbiage,
> instead of actually answering the question I am asking.
I am answering. You often ask me "is it A or B" when it is neither, and you can't
accept that I don't fit into your dichatomous view of how thinking should be. If
might not be A or B, it might be C, or a mixture of C, B and F. I'm explaining
social strucutres and their impact, you're asking about the impact of individual
choices. I've explained this patiently. You seem to not accept that my theory
doesn't fit into your schema of how theories develop -- that is precisely why my
approach is a powerful argument, I reject the premises underlying your approach,
and the way you state the argument and the issues at hand. Mine is an alternative
way to look at the issues, and it often doesn't fit with how you want to frame the
issue.
> Is the relevant
> issue whether the kids "have less chances than the kids of the last
> generation's intelligent people" or is the issue whether the kids have
> less chances than they would have had if the rich hadn't become rich?
It is in the present, not compared to some past system. It deals with whether or
not the use of power and wealth has created social structures which advantage some
vis-a-vis others (relative to each other) in terms of their opportunities based
upon their position in society. That isn't that difficult. If it has, then you
have the development of social classes, groups of people whose position in society
gives them either advantages or disadvantages, based on where in society they are
born, not their own effort or talent. That means one group has more opportunity
and more chances to succeed than another group, relative to each other. That is an
outcome that I believe unjust, and it is right and proper for society to work to
collectively remedy it, with the goal being to assure that even those structurally
disadvantaged have the opportunity to overcome that disadvantage.
> > > If what happened was that people were being pushed off the land into the
> > > factories, then real wages should have been lower in both than they had
> > > been in the past. But the available evidence shows the opposite.
> > > Population was increasing, consumption by the working class of
> > > "luxuries" such as tea and sugar was increasing, savings by the working
> > > class was increasing. Take a look at T.S. Ashton's _The Industrial
> > > Revolution_ for the evidence.
>
> > You're looking at aggregate totals, and certainly not denying that many were
> > paid virtually nothing and living in squalor.
>
> Your claim is about changes over time. In 1800, lots of people were, by
> our standards, living in squalor. In 1840 ditto, in 1880 ditto. But you
> believe in a version of history acccording to which the number should
> have been increasing. In fact it was decreasing. Hence your version of
> history is false. So you should stop making confident pronouncement
> based on it.
You not only misstate my position, the fact is that this was the time period where
government involvement was also increasing, creating regulations. Still, absolute
gains are not the issue; it's the opportunities and possibilities for members in
society relative to each other. Politics is about relative differences, not an
absolute comparison to some past generation.
> > That is undeniable. It is also something
> > that can justifiably lead to revolution if the wealthy keep it up.
>
> If the wealthy keep what up? Given output in 1840, there wasn't anysystem that
> would have resulted in everyone living what you consider a
> decent life. But the conditions of the mass of the population were in
> fact increasing pretty steadily from about 1840 on (I'm talking about
> England). You seem unwilling either to produce evidence that that wasn't
> true, or to look at the evidence I cited that it was, or to revise your
> picture of history to take account of the facts.
My point is that evidence about the MASS of the population is irrelevant to the
point I'm making. You can absolute material improvement for EVERYONE over time,
and still have the development of structural power differentials that limit
opportunity of one class relative to another. That is the problem. That is not
mitigated by saying, "you're still better off than your parents."
> > Luckily, they
> > got the state to protect and save capitalism from itself through social
> > welfare
> > programs and regulations to prevent competition from turning into monopolies
> > and oligarchies circumventing market mechanisms.
>
> That's your story, shared with lots of other people who share your
> political views and historical ignorance, but so far you have given no
> reason why anyone else should believe it.
You have not given any reason why the "story" that scholars and academics studying
this from the Left and Right come up with. You seem to have a theory you really
like and want to promogate, but you need to give me a reason to believe it will
work in the real world. After all, the person challenging the current view tends
to have the burden of proof.
> > > > OBVIOUSLY it is a societal decision!!!!
>
> > > I think "societal decision" is a misleading metaphor, since nobody is
> > > actually deciding it.
> >
> > Collective decisions are made many ways; commonly, shared norms and cultural
> > standards have been decided on amorphously, in a way not easily tracable.
> > But
> > those are still strong social structures that shape social reality.
>
> I didn't object to the claim that they were important, I objected to the
> claim that they were decisions.
That is the language used in much social theory. Language is convention, so if
that is the term used, then by definition that usage is accurate.
cheers, scott
Paul Zrimsek
<vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
>We'll have to agree to disagree about government in education, though I'll see what
>I can find to especially show how UNESCO programs helped enhance literacy world
>wide, and I know I have information somewhere on Germany and Japan.
The National Center for Education Statistics has information right
here: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/eiip/eiipid42.html
As of 1992, public expenditure on education in the US, the former W.
Germany, and Japan as a percentage of GDP were 4.9, 3.0, and 2.7
respectively. The difference is even more impressive when you consider
that per-capita GDP for the latter two countries is somewhere around
75% of the US level in purchasing power parity terms.
Paul Zrimsek pzri...@earthlink.net
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exaggerating every foible, bad habit, and complaint, taking our
behavior out of our control, and defining us as adult children,
recovery encourages invalidism. --Wendy Kaminer
Scott D. Erb
approach the issue, reposted from earlier in the thread:
a) Liberty means the ability of people to act in the way they wish,
unhindered by any limitation. Pure liberty is unobtainable due to
nature, and unjustifiable due to ethical concerns. The issue
is how much should liberty be limited, and through what means.
b) Liberty is denied legitimately through a contract reached
volitionally by both parties without abuse of power by either party, or
by acts of nature outside human control.
c) Illegitimate denial of liberty comes from the abuse of power by
actors who can use power differentials to limit opportunities (provide
some actors with fewer opportunities) or be able to force, either
directly or indirectly, actors to do things they otherwise would not do,
or to injure them in a way which prevents their opportunities to
exercise liberty in the future (the most egregious form of this would be
murder).
d) Human liberty can legitimately be limited by other humans acting
individually or collectively if and only if it is a limitation of a
person's freedom to illegitimately deny liberty from others through
abuse of power.
e) Relying other on markets (capitalism) or government (orthodox
socialism) to end abuses of power fails because each 'solution' empowers
a different group and fails to hold all uses of power accountable.
Markets can be manipulated by those with resources -- markets aren't
magic, but merely an imperfect method of demand communication which
powerful actors can manipulate or circumvent. Governments concentrate
too much power in an elite who can easily become corrupted, despite good
initial intentions.
f) Human liberty is not always limited or denied by
observable direct acts, but can be part of a structural problem whereby
the tyranny of small decisions create class differences where one group
or class of people is structurally empowered (by nature of their
position in society has greater power), and these structures often lead
to involuntary but very real denials of liberty to those lacking
structural power.
f) the solution to this dilemma is to make sure all uses of power are
potentially held accountable to the people in a way which involves both
governments and markets. Markets often lead to the structural
differences above, governments can be used to counter act them.
Practically this would mean: 1) Openness. Governments should not keep
secrets from citizens, as governments are to serve citizens. All
documents shall be open for public inspection. Businesses large enough
to have the resources to abuse power (medium to large corporations)
should have all business documents open involving use of funds, scope of
activities, and things other than the daily functioning of the business
(KFC could keep its secret recipe, for instance). 2) Decentralization.
Governments should be kept small and close to the people, in as much as
this is practical. The larger the government the more bureaucratization
and possibility of corruption and abuse. There have been ideas in these
threads about attempts to keep corporations small. That may be one
possibility. 3) governments can redistribute wealth through progressive
and equitable taxation, limiting loop holes and assuring equal treatment
in order to assure equal opportunity (not equal outcome) to counter act
the negative impact of structural power differentials. This is best done in a
manner held accountable to the people, and in a way to effectively create
equal opportunity rather than equal outcomes. Direct transfers are
rarely effective in that regard.
For this I would see such things as a) a social welfare system which
provides health care, education, and social security to all regardless
of the wealth (those who earn more can pay a premium to get more care,
but a minimum should be provided for all); b) anti-discrimination laws;
and c) equal treatment under the law, working against the ability of
those with power (including structural power) to be able to buy the best
attorneys, etc. (For instance, would a poor white man from rural
Louisiana have had the same chance as acquittal as O.J. Simpson in a
similar case).
Small, open government. Limitations on the power of big business.
Governmental action (open and subject to oversight) to counter
structural power differentials. Those would be the core of the kind of
system I would envision as superior to the current one.
Scott D. Erb
development and the impact of colonialism, besides teh Rwanda example I gave, some
alternative sources you should consider include (first going way back since you
like older essays): John A. Hobson's classic 1902 "Imperialism, A Study."
Some intriguing ideas (that I don't completely agree with, to be sure) come from
the following sources:
Theotonio Dos Santos: "The Structure of Dependence," in the American Economic
Review, 1970.
Immanuel Wallerstein, "The Capitalist World Economy," from a series of books he
wrote developing World Systems Theory. A good concise selection can be found in
the journal Contemporary Marxism, 1984.
Fred Halliday talks about the collapse of the Soviet Union in "A Singular Collapse:
The Soviet Union, Market Pressure and Inter-State Competition," in the journal
*Contention* in 1991. Obviously if you read it, his read on the causes of the
collapse is different than mine, though similar in some respects.
Switching to an overtly conservative author, Zbigniew Brezinski's *The Grand
Failure* is an excellent explanation of why Communism could not reform.
Some current info on the Developing world and its problems can be found in many
sources, including "Developing World 00/01, Dushkin McGraw Hill Annual editions (a
new edition up to date with a collection of articles comes out every year.)
Two books that are good and concise about the state of modern economic theory in
IPE (International Political Economy):
*Economic Power in a Changing International System*, by Anderson, Gutmanis, and
Anderson, Pinter, 2000. They take a regional approach. A good topic oriented
approach, especially in explaining dependency theory vs. liberal modernization
theory can be found in:
*International Economy*, 3rd ed., Lairson and Skidmore;
Others: *The Politics of International Economic Relations*, Spero and Hart, St.
Martin's Press, 1997; and *Managing World Economic Change: International Political
Economy*, by Robert A. Isaak, Prentice Hall, 1995 (I think there is a recent 2001
new edition out there). Each of these go over the details of dependency theory and
the problems of third world development and the complex issues. I think Lairson
and Skidmore is the most succinct and easy to follow, but all are good. I'll try
to look up some stats to go along with his in the next day or two.
cheers, scott
David Friedman
Scott Erb <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
> David Friedman wrote:
>
> > You haven't yet told me what your claim is. And if you are making it,
> > you presumably already have the data to support it, so why not start by
> > pointing me at those data?
>
> I've made the claim that there has been an unprecidented amount of economic
> growth
> and increases in standards of living since WWII for the industrialized West.
> GDP
> has skyrocketed into the trillions. Trade now is greater than the total
> world GDP
> in 1950. Do you really doubt that? On what basis?
I asked two questions, neither of which you answered:
1. Are you measuring "amount" by quantity or percent. Suppose world GNP
had increased by 60% from 1900 to 1950, and by 50% from 1950 to 2000.
The latter would have been a larger absolute increase, since it was
starting from a larger base, but a smaller percentage increase.
2. Is your claim that the increase is greater than in any period of
history, or than in any period of the same length in history?
In any case, I gather you don't actually have numbers, just gee whiz
factoids. My guess is that measured by amount, economic growth for the
U.S. and Western Europe from 1950 to 2000 is greater than in any
previous fifty year period. Measured in percent it might or might not be.
One problem with such statistics is that if you start at the end of
WWII, you are using an artificially depressed baseline; societies
normally grow fast when recovering from wartime damage, since the damage
to the (measurable) physical capital is usually much greater than to the
(normally unmeasured) human capital.
> > And it did a spectacular job of raising the standard of living of the
> > population. It's true that even at the end of the period, people were
> > poor compared to us, a century later--but they were much better off than
> > at the beginning of the period.
> Perhaps, though it was uneven. Clearly the social and political conditions
> at the
> time created political demands which led to more government.
You seem to be implying "and therefore there was something wrong which
more government would fix." But that assumes that all political changes
are for the good. Do you believe that?
> > The sentence "there can certainly be cases where a country has NO
> > comparative advantage vis-a-vis another country" is an almost certain
> > demonstration that you don't know what the term means. It sounds as
> > though your underlying theory of trade is absolute advantage--the
> > dominant view of the 18th century, thorougly demolished by Ricardo at
> > the beginning of the 19th.
...
> > If you feel like it, explain what the term "comparative advantage"
> > means. For a shorter version, tell me if it is possible for country A to
> > have commparative advantage with regard to B while B does not have
> > comparative advantage with regard to A.
> >
> > > > The fact that developed countries have different relative costs than
> > > > underdeveloped countries makes each better off than it would be if the
> > > > other didn't exist.
> >
> > > That isn't self-evident.
> >
> > Of course it isn't self-evident. It is the result of an analysis worked
> > out by one of the smartest people in the history of economics. But he
> > published it almost two hundred years ago, so you can take a free ride
> > on his work--if you are willing to go to the trouble.
>
> Except, of course, the problems of underdeveloped countries didn't exist 200
> years
> ago so that analysis would be of limited value in addressing the real issues
> that
> face third world countries in the 20th century, especially when trade seems
> to
> often make matters worse for real life conditions (even if sometimes it
> creates statistical improvements in crude indicators).
1. The logic of international trade existed two hundred years ago. I
hasn't changed since. Underdeveloped countries existed too.
2. My translation of your reply to my question:
A. You have no idea what the theory of comparative advantage is, or what
the standard economic analysis of trade is.
B. "Even if sometiems it creates statistical improvements in crude
indicators" translates as "I know what is true, don't confuse me with
the facts." You have no evidence to support your deeply held belief that
things are getting worse in the third world, I offer evidence that they
are getting better, so you try to talk your way around it.
> > You can't know that, since you quite obviously don't understand the
> > economic theory you think you are attacking.
>
> Yes I do. I've taken two graduate level courses on International Trade, as
> well as
> courses on International Monetary Policy, The Economics of Non-Renewable
> Resources,
> and the Economics of Social Welfare Systems. I may not always word my posts
> perfectly or be sketchy on the details at times, but I understand basic
> economic theory.
You have just given a fine demonstration of one of the things wrong with
the labor theory of value--you are measuring what you know by inputs,
not by outputs. Your posts here make it reasonably clear that you don't
understand the theory of comparative advantage, which is the central
element in trade theory, and has been for almost two hundred years. When
I asked you a simple question designed to confirm that conclusion, you
didn't answer it.
You have taken a course in the economics of non-renewable resources. Can
you explain, from memory, Hotelling's analysis of that problem? It's the
classic article on the subject. If you didn't study it, your professor
was incompetent, and if you don't understand it, you didn't learn what
the course was supposed to teach.
In class yesterday I asked how many of the students had been taught
calculus. Quite a lot raised their hands. Then I asked how many thought
they actually understood it. About a third as many raised their hands.
That was at a pretty good private university.
> > > First, it's all relative. Politics, life, economics, is relative.
> >
> > I don't know what those words mean, and I doubt you do. Are you really
> > saying that you would rather be in the 90th percentile of the income
> > distribution in England in 1800 than in the 80th percentile today?
>
> Since that choice does not exist, the question is irrelevant for politics.
It's relevant for finding out whether you believe what you wrote. I
gather the answer is "no."
> > > Second, in
> > > absolute terms things are worse for a large chunk of people than they
> > > were
> > > before colonialism, and even before increased trade.
> >
> > What's your evidence?
>
> Again, I can dig up some quotes, but generally scholars believe there was
> little
> malnutrition, there were stable political systems with little political
> violence
> and in general a solid set of social structures before these were penetrated
> and
> destroyed by colonialism.
So what you mean by "evidence" is "quotes from people who agree with my
conclusion," not "the evidence on which those quotes are based." How
about data on measurable things such as life expectancy?
> The culture was stripped away or bastardized. One
> classic example is the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda. Before colonialism they
> intermarried, lived peacefully, and had a stable set of social institutions.
Which consisted of the minority tribe ruling the majority tribe, no?
> Then
> colonizers played them off against each other, gave one (Tutsis) relative
> benefits
> in order to gain their support to run their colonies, and soon a rivalry and
> hatred
> arose between the two which continued to the point of a genocide of nearly 1
> million Tutsis by Hutus in 1994. Nothing like that was happening
> pre-colonialism!
Nothing like that? I seem to remember quite a lot of killing by the
Zulus a little farther south.
Note that the genocide you are describing didn't happen under the
colonizers. It happened with decolonization under a "one man one vote
once" rule--i.e. when your preferred system was imposed. If you tell a
minority tribe which currently has most of the military power that
whoever wins elections will rule, you have just created a strong
incentive to either terrorize the majority tribe or drastically reduce
its numbers.
More generally, I think if you look at the African tyrannies you will
find that they were in large part propped up by "foreign aid" from the
U.S. and the U.S.S.R.; those countries were too poor to afford tyranny
on that scale out of their own resources. That is indeed damage from the
first world, but it has very little to do with capitalism. It is a
policy that people on my side of the argument were opposing and people
on your side were enthusiastically supporting--how could anyone be
against "foreign aid?"
> > We have pretty good data from about the end of
> > WWII on, and those data show conditions in the third world trending
> > pretty steadily upwards--as measured by per capita calorie consumption,
> > life expectancy and the like.
> Do in large part to UN aid, especially agencies like the WHO, FAO, and
> UNESCO.
How do you know?
I note that you have abandoned your factual claim without ever admitting
it was wrong.
> But
> relative to the industrialized North, things have gotten worse, and within
> thesecountries a wealthy elite exists alongside an impoverished poor.
And always has. Your claim was about things getting worse, not about
their being worse than we would like them to be.
[long and wordy response cut. Rhetoric doesn't answer facts. Obviously
things are bad in lots of those countries. But your rhetoric implied
they were getting worse when in fact they have been getting better. And
the countries where things have gotten dramatically better are the ones
that followed the advice of my side of the argument, not your side, over
recent decades. That's why the set of countries shifting away from the
large scale government intervention that people with your views argued
for has been growing.]
> > > > Suppose that without interaction between developed and
> > > > underdeveloped countries each would be growing at 1% a year, and that
> > > > with interaction the figures are 3% and 2%. Are the developed countries
> > > > "exploiting" the underdeveloped? If not, in what sense is the present
> > > > situation a type of neo-colonial exploitation?
> > >
> > > That is a misguided approach. Growth rates are irrelevant as a form of
> > > comparison if there is no contact.
> >
> > Which simply evades the question I'm asking. Replace my growth rate
> > figures with some measure of fixed standard of living. Then answer the
> > question.
>
> I think the paragraph above shows the problem. Relative to the first world,
> things
> aren't improving, and in life conditions things are bleak. This has
> continued for
> half a century with no sign of real change.
"Don't confuse me with the facts." The evidence is that things have been
getting steadily better for that half a century--which you evade with
"no sign of real change."
Again, you keep jumping between relative and absolute, which does not
promote clear thinking. You make a relative claim which is probably
true--the poor countries are not, on average, growing faster than the
rich, although some of them are--and then slide over into "no sign of
real change," which is an absolute claim, and a false one.
> Again, I certainly understand the economic theories, and have studied
> developing countries quite extensively.
"Certainly." I can only judge by what you post, and by what you post
you do not understand at least one of the central economic theories that
you think you reject. I have seen no evidence that you understand any of
it, but that question is still open.
> Accusing me of ignorance, besides being wrong, is
> inappropriate in this kind of discussion.
How would you respond to someone in a thread on the possibilities for
interstellar travel who clearly did not understand relativity--and
confidently asserted that he did? Would you simply politely pretend to
believe him? I am in favor of politeness, but at some point that degree
of politeness becomes counterprodutive.
I can give you stats for a number
> of
> third world countries, I can explain their political development, and talk
> about
> the problems they face. Some paying half of their budget to rich western
> banks to
> pay interest on loans while many in their own country suffer.
Loans made to the governments of those countries. You are complaining
about the misdeeds of governments of mixed economies--i.e. the part of
the system you want to keep and I want to get rid of.
> You talk about abstract statistics that you don't
> provide evidence for either -- you assert they are growing.
I'm waiting for you to ask me for my sources; so far you have taken it
for granted that my statistics exist but tried to talk your way around
them.
> But look at life
> conditions, look how things are worse -- how malnourishment rose in Africa
> over the last decades, for instance.
I can't "just look at" these things, and neither can you, although you
can fool yourself into thinking you have. The world is a very large
place. To justify any statement that on the whole things are worse on
the basis of direct observation, you would have to have actually
observed, in some detail, the lives of hundreds of millions of people
over the past fifty years, and neither you nor I nor anyone else has
done so. The statistics are all we have.
> > > It's also clear that the relative position of the South vis-a-vis the
> > > North has worsened since 1960,
> >
> > Might well be true--but so far I haven't gotten you to make a clear
> > statement as to whether it is absolute or relative position that matters.
>
> The relative position matters in politics, but in absolute terms the figures
> on
> malnourishment and poverty rates show that gains in the third world have been
> uneven. In fact, 35% of third world GDP comes from the few NICs in mostly
> Southeast Asia, for most things are pretty bleak.
Again, are you claiming that in absolute terms the underdeveloped
countries are worse off? That is a factual claim, and a false one--and
you keep trying to blur it up or change the subject.
> > Despite the fact that conditions in the the third world have been
> > improving for fifty years or so--i.e. for as long as we have good data?
>
> Why do you think there has been improvement?
Because if you look at the data on per capita nutrition, life
expectancies, and the like for third world countries you see that they
have trended generally upwards. I gather you have never actually looked
at such data--you prefer highly emotive descriptions to boring cold
facts.
> > So far I'm not proving anything--I'm trying to get you to think clearly
> > and clearly state your claims, since until you do so it is hard to argue
> > with them.
>
> I am, but it doesn't reduce to such one person to another person analogies,
> its a
> structural part of a complex social system. Thinking clearly doesn't mean
> simplifying, it means being clear on concepts used and what they mean.
And one way of finding out whether you are being clear in your concepts
is to apply them to simple situations. If the result is nonsense, then
there is something wrong with the concepts, and you should go back and
figure out what it is.
But every time I try to get you to do that, you evade or change the
subject. Every time I ask you a clear, simple question you reply with a
bunch of oratory. In a way you remind me of Ayn Rand--one of the
irritating things about her philosophical arguments is that whenever
there is a hole in the logic, she papers it over with passionate
rhetoric.
> > Is the relevant
> > issue whether the kids "have less chances than the kids of the last
> > generation's intelligent people" or is the issue whether the kids have
> > less chances than they would have had if the rich hadn't become rich?
> It is in the present, not compared to some past system. It deals with
> whether or
> not the use of power and wealth has created social structures which advantage
> some
> vis-a-vis others (relative to each other) in terms of their opportunities
> based
> upon their position in society. That isn't that difficult.
It is difficult enough so that you are unwilling to restate it
clearly--to answer the simple question of whether "disadvantage"
necessarily means "make someone worse off" or whether it can also means
"make someone else better off." You speak as if it means the former, but
your arguments require the latter.
> > Your claim is about changes over time. In 1800, lots of people were, by
> > our standards, living in squalor. In 1840 ditto, in 1880 ditto. But you
> > believe in a version of history acccording to which the number should
> > have been increasing. In fact it was decreasing. Hence your version of
> > history is false. So you should stop making confident pronouncement
> > based on it.
> You not only misstate my position, the fact is that this was the time period
> where government involvement was also increasing, creating regulations.
1840, roughly, was the triumph of Adam Smith's ideas, as exemplified by
the repeal of the corn laws. Government intervention from then to the
end of the century was considerably less than in the preceding century,
or the succeeding century.
You are the one who was making the usual cartoon history statements
about the evils of the 19th century--now that you have just decided that
it wasn't laissez-faire after all, explain what century you were talking
about.
> Still, absolute
> gains are not the issue; it's the opportunities and possibilities for members
> in
> society relative to each other. Politics is about relative differences, not
> an absolute comparison to some past generation.
I'm not talking about comparisons to past generations, merely pointing
out that your assertions on that subject (what you thought happened in
the 19th century) happen to be false.
The question I keep asking is whether I have "disadvantaged" someone if
I do something that does not make him worse off but does make someone
else better off. By one (relative) definition the answer is "yes," by
another (absolute) the answer is "no." You seem to be trying to have it
both ways, and never answering the question.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Scott Erb
> In article <3AD2FB26...@mail.verizon.net>,
> Scott Erb <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
> 2. Is your claim that the increase is greater than in any period of
> history, or than in any period of the same length in history?
You're picking nits. There has been a huge increase in wealth, and I would submit
that if you look at the amount of generalized prosperity throughout the
industrialized West it is self-evident that the last fifty years has shown the
greatest increase in material wealth ever. If you want to doubt it, fine, but
whether it is first or second isn't really relevant to the argument at hand. If
you find facts that show the specifics, please present them. Otherwise, suffice it
to say it has been a tremendous increase in wealth.
> In any case, I gather you don't actually have numbers, just gee whiz
> factoids. My guess is that measured by amount, economic growth for the
> U.S. and Western Europe from 1950 to 2000 is greater than in any
> previous fifty year period. Measured in percent it might or might not be.
>
> One problem with such statistics is that if you start at the end of
> WWII, you are using an artificially depressed baseline; societies
> normally grow fast when recovering from wartime damage, since the damage
> to the (measurable) physical capital is usually much greater than to the
> (normally unmeasured) human capital.
What this has to do with the larger issues at stake is very unclear.
> > Perhaps, though it was uneven. Clearly the social and political conditions
> > at the
> > time created political demands which led to more government.
>
> You seem to be implying "and therefore there was something wrong which
> more government would fix." But that assumes that all political changes
> are for the good. Do you believe that?
God, that is perhaps the most ridiculous thing you've posted yet. Just because
someone thinks that government has the potential to fix problems doesn't mean that
a person thinks all political change is for the good! Come on, you're starting to
play rhetorical games here, you can do better..
> 1. The logic of international trade existed two hundred years ago. I
> hasn't changed since. Underdeveloped countries existed too.
What on earth does that mean? These things aren't timeless, economies are linked
to social and political structures, and different eras have their own logics. The
logic two hundred years ago was mercantilist and soon would tie colonialism to that
strategy.
> 2. My translation of your reply to my question:
>
> A. You have no idea what the theory of comparative advantage is, or what
> the standard economic analysis of trade is.
I could accuse you of having a very narrow, linear view of social theory and
economics, especially when you try to reduce structural systemic theories to
examples of individuals being more intelligent and making more money, and not
understanding that such things are NOT the type of thing I'm concerned with. I
could accuse you of being simple minded, unable to grasp complicated relations.
However, both accusations, yours and mine, would probably be wrong. It is best to
simply explain ones' view and then explain why you think someone else has got
something wrong than to accuse them of ignorance. Such accusations poison
discussion and serve no useful purpose.
> B. "Even if sometiems it creates statistical improvements in crude
> indicators" translates as "I know what is true, don't confuse me with
> the facts." You have no evidence to support your deeply held belief that
> things are getting worse in the third world, I offer evidence that they
> are getting better, so you try to talk your way around it.
I didn't see you offer any evidence! I noted how malnutrition has gotten worse in
Africa since the seventies (though China has gotten better), how most GDP growth is
in selected countries (the NICs, and of course China) and pointed out that
aggregate stats often hide disparaties in income. I have stats available for a
number of third world countries, and can post some more specifics. But you really
haven't posted much in the way of facts. Out of courtesy, recognizing this isn't
an academic forum but a discussion, I tend to believe you when you claim
something. I'm certainly speaking from a lot of material I've read over years, not
having cites and specifics directly available. In this kind of debate, that is
normal.
> You have just given a fine demonstration of one of the things wrong with
> the labor theory of value--you are measuring what you know by inputs,
> not by outputs. Your posts here make it reasonably clear that you don't
> understand the theory of comparative advantage,
But I do, I even explain it in the courses I teach, and again have not only taken
graduate level courses that I mentioned, but had to pass exams to get my M.A. from
Johns Hopkins (and took more courses while in Ph.D. study; I believe political
science study must be augmented by knowledge of economics and history). Your crude
and careless accusations of ignorance are argument on the cheap.
-snip-
> So what you mean by "evidence" is "quotes from people who agree with my
> conclusion," not "the evidence on which those quotes are based." How
> about data on measurable things such as life expectancy?
Life expectancy has improved in the third world, for the most part. So has
literacy. Most of this is associated with heroic efforts from WHO, UNESCO, and
other agencies designed to bring aid to the third world. But relative to the
first world things have gotten worse, and for large segments of society -- I gave
figures on malnoursishment, how it's increasing in Africa, etc. -- things remain as
bleak as ever.
> > The culture was stripped away or bastardized. One
> > classic example is the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda. Before colonialism they
> > intermarried, lived peacefully, and had a stable set of social institutions.
>
> Which consisted of the minority tribe ruling the majority tribe, no?
No.
> Then
> > colonizers played them off against each other, gave one (Tutsis) relative
> > benefits
> > in order to gain their support to run their colonies, and soon a rivalry and
> > hatred
> > arose between the two which continued to the point of a genocide of nearly 1
> > million Tutsis by Hutus in 1994. Nothing like that was happening
> > pre-colonialism!
>
> Nothing like that? I seem to remember quite a lot of killing by the
> Zulus a little farther south.
Given I was talking about this case, I obviously meant nothing like that was
happening between the Hutus and the Tutsis. Their social structure was destroyed
by colonialism. That is pretty much undeniable. Colonialism was an evil, an
exploitation that destroyed cultures and societies all in the name of economic
expansion.
> Note that the genocide you are describing didn't happen under the
> colonizers. It happened with decolonization under a "one man one vote
> once" rule--i.e. when your preferred system was imposed.
IMPOSED is the relevant word. Colonialism destroyed the old cultures, created
animosity, and imposed new structures. Are you really trying to claim that the
impact of colonialism didn't create conditions that led to such genocides being
more likely?
> If you tell a
> minority tribe which currently has most of the military power that
> whoever wins elections will rule, you have just created a strong
> incentive to either terrorize the majority tribe or drastically reduce
> its numbers.
Yeah, stuff like that happened because of the way colonizers raped the colonies and
imposed their own systems. My point exactly.
> More generally, I think if you look at the African tyrannies you will
> find that they were in large part propped up by "foreign aid" from the
> U.S. and the U.S.S.R.; those countries were too poor to afford tyranny
> on that scale out of their own resources. That is indeed damage from the
> first world, but it has very little to do with capitalism. It is a
> policy that people on my side of the argument were opposing and people
> on your side were enthusiastically supporting--how could anyone be
> against "foreign aid?"
What on earth are you talking about? What do you think "my side" is? Most foreign
aid was military aid given to ruthless tyrants. "MY" side certainly opposed such
things, didn't yours? Sure, the US and USSR were screwing things up, but the real
screw up was imperialism, and that was driven by capitalist expansion (which
economists since J.A. Hobson have persuasively explained).
> > > We have pretty good data from about the end of
> > > WWII on, and those data show conditions in the third world trending
> > > pretty steadily upwards--as measured by per capita calorie consumption,
> > > life expectancy and the like.
>
> > Do in large part to UN aid, especially agencies like the WHO, FAO, and
> > UNESCO.
>
> How do you know?
Because, my friend, I've studied the UN, taught courses on this, and have read the
material. I'm sure that although I tend to believe you when you say you've read
something, you are going to press me on every claim I made and demand I work and
find cites for everything I've experienced. I'll maybe comply, or maybe I'll just
figure your presses aren't worth it, especially since you're not backing anything
up you claim. I'll see what your attitude is.
> I note that you have abandoned your factual claim without ever admitting
> it was wrong.
Huh?
> > But
> > relative to the industrialized North, things have gotten worse, and within
> > thesecountries a wealthy elite exists alongside an impoverished poor.
>
> And always has. Your claim was about things getting worse, not about
> their being worse than we would like them to be.
>
> [long and wordy response cut. Rhetoric doesn't answer facts. Obviously
> things are bad in lots of those countries. But your rhetoric implied
> they were getting worse when in fact they have been getting better.
That is obviously FALSE. The gap between the top 20% and bottom 20% has grown from
20-1 in 1960 to 60-1. A higher percentage of people are malnourished in Africa
than decades ago. Only in a few countries -- China and the NICs -- have things
improved significantly, and there various factors (US foreign policy preferences
for some countries, their growth at the time of a very strong dollar with US trade
preferences in their favor, the Confucian culture of many of these countries)
played a role.
> And
> the countries where things have gotten dramatically better are the ones
> that followed the advice of my side of the argument, not your side, over
> recent decades.
You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about whose "side" of an argument is
being followed. The NICs and China both have used strong state intervention in
their economies to grow. Korea, Taiwan and many of the NICs have gone from
authoritarian structures towards democracy recently (and China is probably 20 years
away from that unless we foolishly start some kind of new cold war), but that kind
of policy doesn't work everywhere. No, your claims are too vague and your claims
of "my" and "your" side rather strange. I'm not sure what your point is.
> That's why the set of countries shifting away from the
> large scale government intervention that people with your views argued
> for has been growing.]
Since I haven't argued for large scale government intervention, you're again making
false conclusions. And the NICs with their state capitalist policies certainly had
massive government intervention, they were authoritarian systems with government
links to business. I think you'd best study these things before you make such
statements.
> "Don't confuse me with the facts." The evidence is that things have been
> getting steadily better for that half a century--which you evade with
> "no sign of real change."
You haven't provided any "facts." Provide some. As it is, I'm the one who has
noted the facts. China has had real progress and improvement. Are they the model
we should follow?
> Again, you keep jumping between relative and absolute, which does not
> promote clear thinking.
> You make a relative claim which is probably
> true--the poor countries are not, on average, growing faster than the
> rich, although some of them are--and then slide over into "no sign of
> real change," which is an absolute claim, and a false one.
That is the most silly rhetorical game I've seen for awhile. So you're saying that
"no sign of real change" is an absolute claim??!!! If I'm talking about poor
countries doing worse relative to the rich and there is no sign of change, then it
is in fact a relative claim. You're squirming around, but not saying much.
> > Again, I certainly understand the economic theories, and have studied
> > developing countries quite extensively.
>
> "Certainly." I can only judge by what you post, and by what you post
> you do not understand at least one of the central economic theories that
> you think you reject. I have seen no evidence that you understand any of
> it, but that question is still open.
I can play that game. I judge from your posts that you are unable to grasp that
the complexities of economic and social life require consideration of structural
and systemic analyses that go beyond the simple reductionism of crude capitalist
models. I have no evidence that you even understand how reality infringes on crude
theories (theories being by definition simplifications of reality), and instead you
naively believe simplified, crude, reductionist theories.
However, maybe it would better if each of us forgo the "you're ignorant" line of
argumentation and try something more productive, like explaining our positions and
avoiding such silly rhetorical games.
> > Accusing me of ignorance, besides being wrong, is
> > inappropriate in this kind of discussion.
>
> How would you respond to someone in a thread on the possibilities for
> interstellar travel who clearly did not understand relativity--and
> confidently asserted that he did? Would you simply politely pretend to
> believe him? I am in favor of politeness, but at some point that degree
> of politeness becomes counterprodutive.
I can play that game. Except I've shown more understanding of economic theory here
than you have. You've at best shown an understanding of the basics of
neo-classical economics, focusing on very old essays and ignorant of modern
developments especially in looking at structural theories and systemic thoeries.
Perhaps rather than attack me as ignorant because my approach and perspective is
different, you should explain your position and explain why you think mine is
wrong.
> I can give you stats for a number
> > of
> > third world countries, I can explain their political development, and talk
> > about
> > the problems they face. Some paying half of their budget to rich western
> > banks to
> > pay interest on loans while many in their own country suffer.
>
> Loans made to the governments of those countries. You are complaining
> about the misdeeds of governments of mixed economies--i.e. the part of
> the system you want to keep and I want to get rid of.
Actually, most of the loans are from western private banks, so its not just
governments.
> > You talk about abstract statistics that you don't
> > provide evidence for either -- you assert they are growing.
>
> I'm waiting for you to ask me for my sources; so far you have taken it
> for granted that my statistics exist but tried to talk your way around
> them.
I tend to treat these discussions as ones where "presses" -- demands people back up
their claims -- are rude and usually the last refuge of someone who is losing an
argument. If you don't know what to say, press for evidence and then attack the
source of that evidence! When it gets to that, things fall apart. I tend to only
want to have reasonable discussions with people I more or less trust not to
blatantly lie, and hence believe a mutual respect is in order.
> > But look at life
> > conditions, look how things are worse -- how malnourishment rose in Africa
> > over the last decades, for instance.
>
> I can't "just look at" these things, and neither can you, although you
> can fool yourself into thinking you have. The world is a very large
> place. To justify any statement that on the whole things are worse on
> the basis of direct observation, you would have to have actually
> observed, in some detail, the lives of hundreds of millions of people
> over the past fifty years, and neither you nor I nor anyone else has
> done so. The statistics are all we have.
Bullfeathers. Not only are there real reports of conditions in various countries,
but the statistics include ones like the increase in malnourishment in Africa from
the 70's to the 90's, the growing disparity between north and south, and accounts
of human misery throughout the global south -- as well as reports about how sweat
shops operate, and how MNCs often try to circumvent labor laws and environmental
regulations, making clear that unregulated, powerful non-governmental actors can be
as evil and power abusive as governments.
> > > > It's also clear that the relative position of the South vis-a-vis the
> > > > North has worsened since 1960,
> > >
> > > Might well be true--but so far I haven't gotten you to make a clear
> > > statement as to whether it is absolute or relative position that matters.
> >
> > The relative position matters in politics, but in absolute terms the figures
> > on
> > malnourishment and poverty rates show that gains in the third world have been
> > uneven. In fact, 35% of third world GDP comes from the few NICs in mostly
> > Southeast Asia, for most things are pretty bleak.
>
> Again, are you claiming that in absolute terms the underdeveloped
> countries are worse off? That is a factual claim, and a false one--and
> you keep trying to blur it up or change the subject.
In absolute terms they are obviously worse off than developed countries. Whether
they are worse off than they were sometimes in the past in terms of economic
statistics is irrelevant, what matters is relative wealth.
> > > Despite the fact that conditions in the the third world have been
> > > improving for fifty years or so--i.e. for as long as we have good data?
> >
> > Why do you think there has been improvement?
>
> Because if you look at the data on per capita nutrition, life
> expectancies, and the like for third world countries you see that they
> have trended generally upwards. I gather you have never actually looked
> at such data--you prefer highly emotive descriptions to boring cold
> facts.
Well, I've noted that malnourished numbers have increased in Africa so gee, I guess
I have paid attention those stats, eh? I also noted above life expectancies have
risen (though they are on the average 14 years less than in the industrialized
north; illiteracy is eight times more common in third world countries), but the
cold hard facts is that while there has been a lot of work by the WHO to stop
disease (parasites like the guiena worm have been decreased dramatically), the FAO
and other UN and private aid to fight hunger (often at least stopping famines), and
UNESCO's efforts at promoting literacy have been effective, the real gap between
the North and South is growing, and there has not been a development of indigenous
industry that has created real growth in the most of the South, again the NICs
excluded. Latin America has had some bright spots (ironically one of the authors
of dependency theory, F.H. Cardoso, is now President of Brazil and trying to plot a
path out of dependency playing by the capitalist system's rules...with marginal
success at best), but overall the structural dependency described in the Dos Santos
article I cited earlier today seems resilient.
I suspect I know more about these countries and their conditions than you do. That
is not a claim I would make even if I thought it if it wasn't for the fact that you
try to brow beat me, something you really don't have cause to do.
> > So far I'm not proving anything--I'm trying to get you to think clearly
> > > and clearly state your claims, since until you do so it is hard to argue
> > > with them.
> >
> > I am, but it doesn't reduce to such one person to another person analogies,
> > its a
> > structural part of a complex social system. Thinking clearly doesn't mean
> > simplifying, it means being clear on concepts used and what they mean.
>
> And one way of finding out whether you are being clear in your concepts
> is to apply them to simple situations. If the result is nonsense, then
> there is something wrong with the concepts, and you should go back and
> figure out what it is.
Your paragraph could be described as nonsense. Some concepts that apply to social
structures don't apply to individual relationships. It's like asking someone to
apply the concept of regression analysis to the problem of how to add 1 + 1. You
have to say, "I'm talking about something very different, it isn't about basic
arithematic."
> But every time I try to get you to do that, you evade or change the
> subject. Every time I ask you a clear, simple question you reply with a
> bunch of oratory. In a way you remind me of Ayn Rand--one of the
> irritating things about her philosophical arguments is that whenever
> there is a hole in the logic, she papers it over with passionate
> rhetoric.
Your rhetoric above, while passionate, is very vague. You'd be better advised to
challenge me on a specific point and ask how my "rhetoric" fails to address that
point. Your paragraph above has no relation to any argument, it is empty rhetoric.
> > > Is the relevant
> > > issue whether the kids "have less chances than the kids of the last
> > > generation's intelligent people" or is the issue whether the kids have
> > > less chances than they would have had if the rich hadn't become rich?
>
> > It is in the present, not compared to some past system. It deals with
> > whether or
> > not the use of power and wealth has created social structures which advantage
> > some
> > vis-a-vis others (relative to each other) in terms of their opportunities
> > based
> > upon their position in society. That isn't that difficult.
>
> It is difficult enough so that you are unwilling to restate it
> clearly--to answer the simple question of whether "disadvantage"
> necessarily means "make someone worse off" or whether it can also means
> "make someone else better off." You speak as if it means the former, but
> your arguments require the latter.
Again: none of that is what I'm talking about when I discuss structure. Obviously
if someone's acts limit or make someone else worse off that can be seen as wrong if
it wasn't something the person who is worse off consented to. Structure is very
simple. This isn't so complex, I'll explain it again and HOPE you finally
understand it: structural differentials of power result when people who have
succeed or done well manage to turn their material gang (or social prestige) into
advantages that work to assure their position and give them opportunities in the
future others don't have. Over time if this happens for many people, social
classes develop. The prima facia evidence for a social class is if your status of
birth (born to a upper middle class suburban family, to a poor ghetto family, etc.)
significantly constrains or empowers you in your ability to achieve your goals: if
position in society determines the kinds of opportunities you have. In such a
case, it is legitimate for collective action to assure that those who are most
constrained and do not have equal opportunity are able to be given the tools to
have equal opportunity. That does not mean redistribution of wealth to create
equal outcome.
Get it?
> > You not only misstate my position, the fact is that this was the time period
> > where government involvement was also increasing, creating regulations.
>
> 1840, roughly, was the triumph of Adam Smith's ideas, as exemplified by
> the repeal of the corn laws. Government intervention from then to the
> end of the century was considerably less than in the preceding century,
> or the succeeding century.
>
> You are the one who was making the usual cartoon history statements
> about the evils of the 19th century--now that you have just decided that
> it wasn't laissez-faire after all, explain what century you were talking
> about.
After 1830 reforms started to gain momentum. By the 1860's John Stuart Mill and
"new liberalism" was recognizing that laissez faire capitalism could not work. You
needed to have government intervention to try to stop abuses of individual
liberties by the owners of the means of production, and to try to promote equal
opportunity.
> > Still, absolute
> > gains are not the issue; it's the opportunities and possibilities for members
> > in
> > society relative to each other. Politics is about relative differences, not
> > an absolute comparison to some past generation.
>
> I'm not talking about comparisons to past generations, merely pointing
> out that your assertions on that subject (what you thought happened in
> the 19th century) happen to be false.
So you assert. Yet I have no reason to believe your vague assertions.
> The question I keep asking is whether I have "disadvantaged" someone if
> I do something that does not make him worse off but does make someone
> else better off. By one (relative) definition the answer is "yes," by
> another (absolute) the answer is "no." You seem to be trying to have it
> both ways, and never answering the question.
Your question is irrelevant. If you do not abuse power in acheiving your better
position, and if you haven't benefited from structural power (the position in
society you hold) to gain an unfair advantage of another, then no problem. The
fact someone is disadvantaged relative to you is something I certainly can accept.
Those are not the kind of issues I'm concerned with. I am not opposed to some
people succeeded and getting wealthy, while others don't, as long as it is related
to effort and talent/ideas. What I'm concerned with is how initial success can be
parlayed into structural advantage for classes of people as they turn the benefits
of that initial success into an ability to secure advantages down the line. That
is how social classes develop.
cheers, scott
http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~erb/
David Friedman
Scott Erb <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
> > I don't follow your amended version either. Whatever solution we come up
> > with, the problems you mention are reasons to be unsure whether that is
> > the correct solution. But that doesn't mean that our best guess is a
> > mixed system rather than a "black and white" conclusion.
> I believe it does. I have studied social science my whole adult life, which
> still
> is only about twenty years, but in every area I've looked at, from economics
> to
> philosophy of science, to comparative political systems and theories of war,
> international political economy, etc., the most impotent and failed theories
> are
> those which started with absolute black and white assumptions and offered a
> universal approach to defining the problem and prescribing the theory.
That's a statement of your belief. It also appears to be an argument
from authority--you have studied the subject for twenty years, and these
are your conclusions.
I have no general objection to arguments from authority; sometimes they
are appropriate. But the fact that you have studied the subject for
twenty years provides no reason for other people to respect your views;
it's possible to study a subject for a long time and not understand it.
The obvious question is whether you can offer any evidence that you
actually are an authority. What articles have you published in peer
reviewed journals, what books have you written and how have they been
reviewed?
If you don't have that kind of evidence for your authority, the rest of
us are left judging your opinion on the evidence of your posts. So far
as I can tell from them, you simply accept the conventional cliches that
you would learn in a high school or college class taught by a liberal
teacher. I in fact took such a class in high school, taught by such a
teacher. He was a good teacher and an honest man, with the result that
we had a good time arguing with each other--but he didn't actually know
very much about the subject outside of what the textbook said, much of
which wasn't true.
Similarly, you appear to accept with great confidence the conventional
wisdom about various things where the conventional wisdom is false--and
when I challenge it, it becomes clear that you have no data to back up
your beliefs, just the confidence of someone who hasn't been exposed to
a very wide range of views, or at least not to a wide range of views
competently presented. So far as economics, where I do have a reasonable
claim to expertise, your posts suggest that you don't understand it very
well, although obviously you think you do.
So I don't find the argument from authority part of your argument very
convincing.
<comments on why what economics tries to do is hard deleted>
> No theory can take all this into account, it rests on vast
> simplifications. Hence, from my experience in looking at how a lot of people
> develop really elegant and sophisticated theories, and how none of them work
> in a
> complex world because of the problems inherent in doing social science, I
> don't
> think theory can provide the solution.
Then where do you get your "solution"--i.e. your best guess at the right
answer? Facts don't speak for themselves.
I think what you really mean is "I don't think your theory can provide
the solution, but I think my theory does." If that isn't what you are
saying, then what is your basis for any conclusion about what
institutions we should have--in particular, the conclusion that the
optimum is a mixed economy rather than pure laissez-faire (or, for that
matter, pure centrally planned communism)?
> Also, given the importance of culture and
> our ability to remold social reality over time, a "right" solution in one
> time and place might not work in another.
Could be. You were the one trying to make arguments about how
laissez-faire didn't work in the 19th century and had to be corrected by
government intervention (mistaken arguments, I think, but the arguments
you were making). If we can't use evidence from one time to figure out
what is right for another, why were you bothering to make those
arguments? We aren't in the 19th century any more.
Evidence, mostly about other times and places, plus theory are all we've
got. I have no objection to your arguing that they aren't adequate for a
very high degree of certainty about what the right institutions are--I
agree with that claim. But that isn't your position--you are far more
confident that your solution (a mixed economy roughly along current
lines) is right than I am that my solution (anarcho-capitalism) is
right. You can't support your confidence that your position is right by
offering arguments for why any position might be wrong.
> > You seem to be confusing "black and white" in the sense of "I am
> > absolutely certain my conclusion is correct" with "black and white" in
> > the sense of "my conclusion is that our best system is a pure
> > form"--anarcho-capitalism being one example.
> > In the first sense of black and white, I suggest that your views are
> > rather more black and white than mine are--as demonstrated by your
> > responding to my comments on education with "How can you doubt it??!!!!"
> I said that given the complexity of
> the system a social theory that provides a single black and white answer
> meant to
> cover all cultures over all time as one "best" way fails as it smuggles in
> the
> biases of the theorist, simplifies complex social relationships, ignores the
> impact of perspective and culture, and in my experience tends to fail.
How about a social theory that provides a single grey answer? How about
one that provides a set of grey answers, one per culture and time? Your
comments apply to those theories too.
And I don't know what your "in my experience tends to fail" means. How
do you find out whether the theory failed? If the theory predicts that
laissez-faire or free trade will make people better off, showing that it
fails means showing that a society that actually had laissez-faire would
have been better off with something else, or a society that had
something else was better off than it would have been with
laissez-faire. How does your "experience" demonstrate that without a
theory? And how, even with a theory, can it demonstrate that if you
don't actually know what the historical facts are, and aren't interested
in finding out?
Going back, for a moment, to my views, I don't think I have ever claimed
that the same set of institutions are best for all cultures and times.
On the contrary, in _The Machinery of Freedom_ I stated quite explicitly
that whether it was practical to go all the way to anarchy depended on
particular features of the environment, which I discussed.
> Most people who debate are pretty convinced their view is accurate, in this
> case I
> have seen information about the increase in world literacy in the 20th
> century
> which is directly correlated with government efforts to increase education,
Do you mean that literacy has gone up more in countries where the
government spent more? Do you happen to know how per capita spending on
schooling varies across countries? You might want to check the numbers
before making such an assertion.
Or do you mean "in the 20th century, literacy went up and governments
provided schooling?" That's a pretty weak argument, given that lots of
other things were happening, most notably large increases in real
income. And it is even weaker if you look at the data (see West's book,
which I already cited), and discover that literacy was rising before the
government got involved (in England).
> Maybe government isn't the causal
> factor, but it certainly does not seem to be making matters worse.
> I've NEVER seen evidence to suggest that.
You have seen no evidence at all about relative performance, in the
U.S., of public schools and the various non-public systems? How about
evidence on what happened to American schooling from 1960 to 1980? You
can find the data summarized in Peltzman's "The Political Economy of the
Decline of American Public Education", Journal of Political Economy c.
1993.
> > What argument tells you that a complex and dynamic system has to have a
> > complicated solution? We know it isn't true for all systems--how do you
> > know it is true for social and political systems?
> Put it this way: all the evidence I've seen points to the contrary, for the
> reasons
> I describe above. True, that is simply the "conventional" view of social
> scientists, but its based on experience and analysis.
> > Highway traffic is a complex and dynamic system. The rule "you must stop
> > at a red light" is a simple rule. Do you conclude that that rule must be
> > wrong?
>
> That is a socially constructed norm, reinforced by law.
True but irrelevant. Is it a bad rule? It's a simple one. You are the
one who is claiming that complicated systems must have complicated
solutions.
> Certainly you can see
> socially constructed norms in domestic and political systems, and they can
> indeed be reinforced by law.
And you gradually glide away from answering the question, which wasn't
about whether there exist socially constructed norms reinforced by laws
but about whether the solution to a complicated system must itself be
complicated.
> But that's not the same as a universal theory saying what
> system is best, it's a very different thing - the former is a human construct
> designed to make traffic flow, the latter is a human theory about what kind
> of economic and political system is best.
I didn't say anything in this part of the discussion about a universal
theory saying what system is best. I was challenging your undefended
claim that the right answer couldn't be simple--couldn't, for example,
be laissez-faire capitalism with no government regulation. You based
that claim on the observation that the system was complicated, I pointed
out that complicated systems sometimes had simple solutions, and you
changed the subject. At least, I thought that was the claim you were
making--if not we may have wasted a lot of bandwidth.
As it happens, I do have a universal theory (actually several, but the
one I'm professionally involved with is economics), but it doesn't say
that the same system is best under all circumstances. It can be applied
to any society to help you figure out what institutions are best for
that society--but you need a lot of other stuff too.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
Scott Erb <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
> David Friedman wrote:
> > We have to work on the best theory we have. I agree that the relevant
> > (economic) theory is far from perfect, but we don't have anything
> > better. That is one of the reasons I am a conservative anarchist; I
> > think the sensible policy is to move gradually towards what you think is
> > the ideal society, revising your views on the subject as additional data
> > come in.
>
> Well, that's the same thing that anarcho-socialists might say too.
A conservative anarcho-socialist might say it, but he would be wrong,
because he doesn't have a good theory on which to base his opinion about
what we should be moving towards. Theories aren't all equal, as you
presumaably would agree in some other contexts.
> > I'm not switching topics, and I'm not talking about the virtues of
> > markets. I'm talking about the virtues of neoclassical economics. My
> > point is that the socialists don't have "the same kind of abstract
> > economic theory"--i.e. don't have a theoretical structure of comparable
> > sophistication and consistency. My evidence is that the smart socialist
> > economists chose to follow Marshall, not Marx.
>
> It's not a black and white choice. Reality is complex. Marx's insights are
> very similar in many regards to neo-classical economics, he helped set the
> stage.
I don't think so. I admit that I am not sure I fully understand Marx,
but from the parts I do understand he appears to be simply a step
backwards from Ricardo. I cannot think of any element in the structure
of ideas I work with as an economist that comes from him.
I will, however, concede that he was a first rate rhetorician. Volume I
of _Capital_, viewed as fiction, is in the same class as Stapledon's
_Last and First Men_, and his vituperation is right up there with Rand's.
> The biggest insight from Marx was on the power of class and social
> structure, and his focus on exploitation.
I would have said that his focus on exploitation was one of the parts of
the theory that made no sense--and gradually got converted from
economics to philosophy as he elaborated the economic theory.
> His biggest error was
> over-determination and his inability to accept democracy. He assumed that if
> you get rid of exploitation you'd get a socialist utopia; perhaps, but you
> don't
> get rid of exploitation with a revolution, you'd have to change how people
> think. That's politics and culture, and any theory that doesn't recognize
> the
> profound impact of politics and culture is bound to fail. Such theories
> smuggle
> in the author's own cultural and philosophical biases believing those biases
> to
> be human nature or the way other people would think if totally free.
How about the fact that he wildly mispredicted what would happen under
laissez-faire capitalism? He said the rich would get richer and the poor
get poorer. In fact both the rich and the poor got richer. He said the
middle class would vanish. In fact it grew. And his predictions
supposedly followed from his economic theory--which is evidence that the
theory was wrong.
[On the rest of this, I give up. I don't think I am going to get you to
think through your use of terms such as "power" and "reducing liberty"
and the like in what I would regard as a clear and coherent fashion, and
obviously you think you have already done so.]
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
Scott Erb <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
> David Friedman wrote:
> > For purposes of clarity, consider a case where the people are not
> > interacting at all. John and Bob each has cleared his little patch of
> > jungle and is living there. John happens to be a much better farmer than
> > Bob. John uses that ability to grow a fruit orchard, with the result
> > that, ten years later, John lives a life of leisure picking ripe fruit
> > from time to time, while poor Bob is still sweating away in his grain
> > field.
> > John's act has gained him more power--the power to have food without
> > doing much further work for it. That is an advantage over Bob. You could
> > say that that advantage limits Bob's opportunities to "achieve
> > relatively equal outcomes." But it does so not by restricting Bob's
> > opportunities--they are exactly the same as if John had never
> > existed--but by raising the definition of "equal outcomes," since
> > "equal" is now "equal to John's improved standard of living."
> Again, that would not be a situation that would lead to the structural
> advantages unless they came in contact
They are neighbors and know of each other's existence.
> with each other and John used his position to FORCE Bob
> to be a servant or a slave,
What does "force" mean? Does it count as "structural advantage" if John
offers Bob some of his fruit in exchange for Bob pruning the fruit
trees? Is that being a "servant?"
> or to bribe people not have dealings with Bob, or to
> somehow limit Bob.
So does "limit Bob" mean "reduce Bob's options below those he would have
had if John didn't exist?" If that is your position, you are back having
to argue that the rich, by getting rich, absolutely reduce the options
of the poor--which you seem unwilling to do.
> All of this would be individual, and would not touch the
> structural concerns I have. Structural deals with the development of social
> classes and constraints and limitations that exist by virtue of one's place
> in
> society. If people have no interactions, there is no society, there is no
> structure, and my concerns are not relevant.
But the definition of "constraints and limitations" is relevant. If the
rich people in the upper social class are not reducing the options
available to the poor, then how are they limiting their liberty simply
by being rich?
> > You might reply that all this is acceptable because it doesn't meet your
> > "if they possess equal talent and effort" condition. But now consider
> > John Jr. and Bob Jr. John Jr. inherits his father's orchard and life of
> > leisure. So John senior, by planting the orchard, limited Bob Jr.'s
> > opportunity to achieve outcomes equal to those of John Jr., even if Bob
> > Jr. has the same effort and ability as Bob Jr.
>
> Again, if they aren't interacting or in the same society, it's irrelevant.
> But the
> real world doesn't deal with discrete individuals whose power and wealth
> don't
> impact others. The interaction and the social impact of that power is where
> structural power comes into play.
A fog of words to avoid clear thinking, so far as I can tell. In the
interaction and social impact and all the rest of that, does "structural
power" only count as reducing freedom when it actually reduces
freedom--i.e. reduces the options available to the people who don't have
it--or does it also count when it gives additional options to its
possessors?
> > Now do you see what bothers me about your position? You seem to confuse
> > the claim "A limited B's opportunities" in the sense of "reduced the
> > range of things B cold do" with the claim "A limited B's opportunities
> > to achieve equal outcomes with C," where the latter might mean "A
> > improved C's opportunities without at all restricting B's."
> No, I'm not dealing with such simplified specific individual situations,
I've noticed your unwillingness to do so.
>I'm
> dealing with the vast array of complex social structures and differentials of
> power
> in an interdependent and interacting society.
In other words, you are only willing to apply your concepts to systems
complicated enough so that you don't have to think clearly about what
they mean.
> > If A does something that increases C's opportunities while neither
> > increasing nor decreasing B's opportunities, has he "unjustly limited"
> > B? Certainly he has made it harder for B to achieve the same outcome as
> > C.
>
> Again, those are not the things of social structure. Social structure
> involves
> relative power of actors vis-a-vis each other to constrain or empower the
> other.
Or in other words, you are unwilling to answer the question--which has
to do with what the words "constrain" or "limit" mean when you use them.
> We'll have to agree to disagree about government in education, though I'll
> see what
> I can find to especially show how UNESCO programs helped enhance literacy
> world
> wide, and I know I have information somewhere on Germany and Japan.
I recommend West's book. Reading things by people who disagree with you
is likely to be more productive than reading things by people who agree
with you. For one thing, you read them with a more critical eye.
> > > It seems to fit evidence around the world in comparative governments and
> > > various
> > > regions. I see no evidence to the contrary.
> >
> > I don't think you have offered any evidence. For the developed world,
> > have you actually looked at the trend of literacy starting, say, a
> > century before government became involved in schooling? If not, all you
> > are saying is that over the last century or two both literacy and
> > government involvement in schooling rose. But during that period real
> > incomes rose too, by an enormous amount--which would account for the
> > increase in literacy. Quality of housing went up a lot too--with very
> > little government involvement, at least in the U.S. and Britain.
>
> Well, that's not evidence that the private sector would have educated just as
> well,
> at best you're saying it might still have happened.
You claim that an observed change is due to a particular cause. Evidence
that the change started before the cause is evidence that your claim is
false--effects don't occur before their causes. That still leaves open
the question of what the real cause was.
> Obviously, we can't know for
> sure. Usually, though, governments do things in response to political
> demands.
Yes. But political demands don't reliably reflect what actually benefits
people overall, for reasons that were worked out in some detail in
public choice theory several decades ago, and have been obvious in a
more general way for some centuries.
> It's a lot easier to have a private education system when a wealthy elite are
> the
> only ones being educated. But when you want to educate workers and others
> who may
> not have much money, I can't see how a private system can do it.
Which is why you should read West, since one of the things he discusses
is the evidence on the education that English workers c.
1830--enormously poorer than any significant number of people in the
developed world today--provided for their children.
You might consider that the mass of the population is paying most of the
taxes that provide schooling for their children--and that government
provided goods and services are usually more costly than services
provided on a competitive market. So while your argument might be
plausible for, say, the poorest ten percent, it doesn't make much sense
for "the workers." And at present the poorest ten percent aren't getting
much of an education from government.
You might enjoy Sowell's book. I find it depressing, because I prefer to
believe that people who disagree with me are making intellectual errors
rather than moral errors, and Sowell pretty clearly believes the latter.
But he has a very good discussion of why pop statistics--hunger in
America, or income distribution, or lots of other things--are wildly
misleading. And he is a very bright guy. _Ethnic America_, which I have
read all of, does a persuasive job of arguing that the situation of
American blacks is more like the situation of various ethnic immigrant
groups in the past than most people suppose.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
Scott Erb <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
> David Friedman wrote:
>
> > In article <3AD2FB26...@mail.verizon.net>,
> > Scott Erb <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > 2. Is your claim that the increase is greater than in any period of
> > history, or than in any period of the same length in history?
>
> You're picking nits.
No--I'm trying to get you to state your claim clearly. But it's
apparently impossible.
> There has been a huge increase in wealth, and I would
> submit
> that if you look at the amount of generalized prosperity throughout the
> industrialized West it is self-evident that the last fifty years has shown
> the greatest increase in material wealth ever.
Ever? You are claiming that the percentage increase from 1951 to 2001 in
real incomes through the industrialized west is larger than from 1000
A.D. to 1951? That's obviously absurd--which is why you have to specify
a time period to make your claim testable.
> > > Perhaps, though it was uneven. Clearly the social and political
> > > conditions
> > > at the
> > > time created political demands which led to more government.
\
> > You seem to be implying "and therefore there was something wrong which
> > more government would fix." But that assumes that all political changes
> > are for the good. Do you believe that?
>
> God, that is perhaps the most ridiculous thing you've posted yet. Just
> because
> someone thinks that government has the potential to fix problems doesn't mean
> that
> a person thinks all political change is for the good! Come on, you're
> starting to
> play rhetorical games here, you can do better..
The basis for my "you seem to be implying" wasn't your claim that
government has the potential to fix problems. It was your statement that
"Clearly the social and political conditions at the time created
political demands which led to more government."
That observation was only relevant to the argument if you thought that
the fact that those political demands existed was evidence that there
was a problem for which more government was the solution. But that
implies that you think that all, or at least most, political changes are
for the good--and hence that if there is a political demand for X that
is a reason to think that X is a good thing.
> > 2. My translation of your reply to my question:
> > A. You have no idea what the theory of comparative advantage is, or what
> > the standard economic analysis of trade is.
> I could accuse you of having a very narrow, linear view of social theory and
> economics, especially when you try to reduce structural systemic theories to
> examples of individuals being more intelligent and making more money, and not
> understanding that such things are NOT the type of thing I'm concerned with.
> I
> could accuse you of being simple minded, unable to grasp complicated
> relations.
Feel free.
> However, both accusations, yours and mine, would probably be wrong. It is
> best to
> simply explain ones' view and then explain why you think someone else has got
> something wrong than to accuse them of ignorance. Such accusations poison
> discussion and serve no useful purpose.
I have explained the theory of comparative advantage in chapters in two
books, one of them available online. David Ricardo explained it almost
two hundred years ago. I'm not going to redo it in a Usenet thread.
I asked you a simple question, designed to check my guess that you
didn't understand what comparative advantage was. You didn't answer it.
> > B. "Even if sometiems it creates statistical improvements in crude
> > indicators" translates as "I know what is true, don't confuse me with
> > the facts." You have no evidence to support your deeply held belief that
> > things are getting worse in the third world, I offer evidence that they
> > are getting better, so you try to talk your way around it.
>
> I didn't see you offer any evidence!
"Offer" isn't "present." I asserted that evidence existed. You
responded, not by asking me where to find it (which would have been a
perfectly reasonable response) but by assuming it existed and trying to
talk your way around it ("even if sometimes it creates statistical
improvements in crude indicators").
> I noted how malnutrition has gotten worse in
> Africa since the seventies
Sources? Real figures on calories per capita, not "X says that it has
gotten worse." Africa is a big place, so even if thing are getting
better on average there will be places where they are getting worse.
> > So what you mean by "evidence" is "quotes from people who agree with my
> > conclusion," not "the evidence on which those quotes are based." How
> > about data on measurable things such as life expectancy?
> Life expectancy has improved in the third world, for the most part.
Finally we agree.
> So has
> literacy. Most of this is associated with heroic efforts from WHO, UNESCO,
> and
> other agencies designed to bring aid to the third world. But relative to
> the
> first world things have gotten worse, and for large segments of society -- I
> gave
> figures on malnoursishment, how it's increasing in Africa, etc. -- things
> remain as bleak as ever.
Actually, you didn't give any figures on Africa, at least in the
exchanges with me. You asserted malnourishment had increased.
Where are there published data on calorie consumption per capita in
Africa that show it has been going down since the seventies?
> > Note that the genocide you are describing didn't happen under the
> > colonizers. It happened with decolonization under a "one man one vote
> > once" rule--i.e. when your preferred system was imposed.
>
> IMPOSED is the relevant word. Colonialism destroyed the old cultures,
> created
> animosity, and imposed new structures. Are you really trying to claim that
> the
> impact of colonialism didn't create conditions that led to such genocides
> being more likely?
I'm neither claiming it nor denying it. It may well be true. But what
actually set off that particular genocide was decolonization along
democratic lines. Do you deny that?
> > More generally, I think if you look at the African tyrannies you will
> > find that they were in large part propped up by "foreign aid" from the
> > U.S. and the U.S.S.R.; those countries were too poor to afford tyranny
> > on that scale out of their own resources. That is indeed damage from the
> > first world, but it has very little to do with capitalism. It is a
> > policy that people on my side of the argument were opposing and people
> > on your side were enthusiastically supporting--how could anyone be
> > against "foreign aid?"
> What on earth are you talking about? What do you think "my side" is?
By your side, I mean people whose general arguments and point of view
are similar to what I have seen of yours. Obviously, I may be mistaken,
since I haven't discussed all relevant issues with you.
On the other hand, I think it is worth making some effort to link
political views through time. Otherwise you have the situation where a
person with ideology X says "The Bolshevik revolution is a triumph for
the working classes and will do for Russia in decades what took the
capitalist world centuries."
After a while it turns out that the Soviet Union is an oppressive
dictatorship. So another person with ideology X says "of course we all
know that the Soviet Union is bogus socialism, but Mao is the real
thing, and he is going to eliminate hunger in China and do for China in
decades what ... ." After that turns out to be false, a third person
with ideology X says "Of course we all know that Communist China was a
fraud, but ... ."
Obviously there is a danger in my argument--that I may be falsely
blaming people with beliefs Y for the errors made by people with beliefs
X. On the other hand, if you simply take everyone as starting fresh, you
never are in a position to test a system of beliefs by whether its
predictions turn out to be true.
Going back to the present case. When I was an undergraduate at Harvard a
very long time ago, I argued with lots of people who had the sort of
views you have expressed of 19th century laissez-faire, and the need for
government intervention to control the excesses of business and keep the
rich from getting too rich. All of those people thought my view that
"foreign aid" was a misnomer, that it consisted of giving money to
foreign governments but generally resulted in making their subjects
worse off, was obviously crazy. They all knew that foreign aid was a
good thing, and was going to help bring the third world up to first
world standards.
Hence my comment that people on your side were enthusiastically in favor
of foreign aid.
> Most foreign
> aid was military aid given to ruthless tyrants.
Lots of it was economic "aid" given to governments that talked a good
leftish democratic line.
> "MY" side certainly opposed such
> things, didn't yours? Sure, the US and USSR were screwing things up, but the
> real
> screw up was imperialism, and that was driven by capitalist expansion (which
> economists since J.A. Hobson have persuasively explained).
You have a diffeent definition of economists than I do. So far as I
know, no serious modern economists take seriously the Marxist argument
that capitalism has to expand geographically.
> > I note that you have abandoned your factual claim without ever admitting
> > it was wrong.
> Huh?
The factual claim was that things were not getting better. I pointed out
that they were getting better, and your response was "because of the
U.N. etc." Doesn't that fit what I just said?
> > And
> > the countries where things have gotten dramatically better are the ones
> > that followed the advice of my side of the argument, not your side, over
> > recent decades.
>
> You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about whose "side" of an argument
> is
> being followed. The NICs and China both have used strong state intervention
> in
> their economies to grow.
Relative to what? China's big growth came when it switched from
communism to a mixed system with large elements of capitalism.
Hong Kong was about the closest thing out there to laissez-faire, and
the most successful economy of the postwar period--with the fewest
resources per capita and the biggest population problem.
> > "Don't confuse me with the facts." The evidence is that things have been
> > getting steadily better for that half a century--which you evade with
> > "no sign of real change."
> You haven't provided any "facts." Provide some. As it is, I'm the one who
> has noted the facts. China has had real progress and improvement. Are they the
> model we should follow?
Neither of us has provide the facts; we have both asserted them.
You can find the summary of the data on conditions in the third world,
consisting largely of U.N. statistics, in _The Ultimate Resource_ by the
late Julian Simon. I think _The Ultimate Resource 2_ has more up to date
data, but haven't checked it.
Now tell me where I find the actual cites to data to support your
claims.
> > How would you respond to someone in a thread on the possibilities for
> > interstellar travel who clearly did not understand relativity--and
> > confidently asserted that he did? Would you simply politely pretend to
> > believe him? I am in favor of politeness, but at some point that degree
> > of politeness becomes counterprodutive.
> I can play that game. Except I've shown more understanding of economic
> theory here than you have.
So you assert. That isn't my conclusion. Third parties can decide for
themselves.
> You've at best shown an understanding of the basics of
> neo-classical economics, focusing on very old essays and ignorant of modern
> developments especially in looking at structural theories and systemic
> thoeries.
Someone who was trying to explain special relativity would also be
focussing on old writings--Einstein published before Hotelling (but
after Ricardo). My understanding of current economics is enough to get
me published in current economic journals, cited in current articles,
and get my books used in current economics courses.
> Perhaps rather than attack me as ignorant because my approach and perspective
> is
> different, you should explain your position and explain why you think mine is
> wrong.
I'm attacking you as ignorant because you make statements about a body
of theory that I know, and they aren't true. The theory of comparative
advantage isn't handwaving and oratory--it is a precise set of ideas.
Hence my point about relativity.
That's quite separate from your claims to have a different theory to
explain the world. I don't find them convincing, but that isn't an issue
of ignorance but of disagreement.
If you want an explanation of my views, you can find it in _Hidden
Order_, available from better bookstores everywhere. Its predecessor,
_Price Theory_, is even available for free on my web page--but it is
longer and somewhat less readable.
> > Loans made to the governments of those countries. You are complaining
> > about the misdeeds of governments of mixed economies--i.e. the part of
> > the system you want to keep and I want to get rid of.
> Actually, most of the loans are from western private banks, so its not just
> governments.
But loans to governments.
> > Again, are you claiming that in absolute terms the underdeveloped
> > countries are worse off? That is a factual claim, and a false one--and
> > you keep trying to blur it up or change the subject.
>
> In absolute terms they are obviously worse off than developed countries.
> Whether
> they are worse off than they were sometimes in the past in terms of economic
> statistics is irrelevant, what matters is relative wealth.
Really? So you would rather be in the 90th percentile of the population
of 18th century England than the 80th percentile of present day England?
That is what "what matters is relative welath" means. Do you believe it?
Do you really think that if the developed countries triple per capita
real income and the underdeveloped countries double it, the situation of
the latter has gotten worse?
That is what you are saying, but I doubt it is what you believe. Your
words were "what matters is relative wealth."
> Your rhetoric above, while passionate, is very vague. You'd be better
> advised to
> challenge me on a specific point and ask how my "rhetoric" fails to address
> that
> point. Your paragraph above has no relation to any argument, it is empty
> rhetoric.
I have done so over and over again--on the specific point of whether
what matters is relative or absolute wealth.
> This isn't so complex, I'll explain it again and HOPE you finally
> understand it: structural differentials of power result when people who have
> succeed or done well manage to turn their material gang (or social prestige)
> into
> advantages that work to assure their position and give them opportunities in
> the
> future others don't have.
By reducing the opportunities of those others or by increasing their own
opportunities? Those aren't the same thing.
> Over time if this happens for many people, social
> classes develop. The prima facia evidence for a social class is if your
> status of
> birth (born to a upper middle class suburban family, to a poor ghetto family,
> etc.)
> significantly constrains or empowers you in your ability to achieve your
> goals: if
> position in society determines the kinds of opportunities you have. In such
> a
> case, it is legitimate for collective action to assure that those who are
> most
> constrained and do not have equal opportunity are able to be given the tools
> to
> have equal opportunity. That does not mean redistribution of wealth to
> create
> equal outcome.
>
> Get it?
Your words could equally well describe two quite different situations.
In one the rich are keeping the poor from achieving things the poor
could achieve if the rich weren't interfering. In the other the rich are
creating new opportunities for themselves and their children some of
which they are not making available to the poor. Do you regard those two
as equivalent?
> > You are the one who was making the usual cartoon history statements
> > about the evils of the 19th century--now that you have just decided that
> > it wasn't laissez-faire after all, explain what century you were talking
> > about.
>
> After 1830 reforms started to gain momentum.
In 1830 England had not yet adopted laissez-faire. So by your account
there was no period of laissez-faire for us to argue about.
> By the 1860's John Stuart Mill and
> "new liberalism" was recognizing that laissez faire capitalism could not
> work. You
> needed to have government intervention to try to stop abuses of individual
> liberties by the owners of the means of production, and to try to promote
> equal opportunity.
And how big was the government share of the economy by 1880? What major
interventions had occurred?
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Scott Erb
David Friedman wrote:
> > Again, if they aren't interacting or in the same society, it's irrelevant.
> > But the
> > real world doesn't deal with discrete individuals whose power and wealth
> > don't
> > impact others. The interaction and the social impact of that power is where
> > structural power comes into play.
>
> A fog of words to avoid clear thinking, so far as I can tell.
I honestly think its less a "fog of words" then a different level of analysis and
perspective on the international economic system than you are used to. You think
from a reductionist theory which brings things down to individual exchanges; this
is a systemic theory. It isn't as holistic as Wallerstein's Word Systems approach
(again, the article I suggested yesterday will give you more insights into that
approach), but it does not that the system operates in a manner that creates social
structures which empower and constrain. That is undeniable. To take it to the
individual level of analysis which you prefer, if a person is born in a suburb to a
wealthy family, or in a ghetto, or in a third world slum, or to third world elites,
that person will be constrained and empowered in different ways in each social
context.
I think that much is undeniable, isn't it? It isn't completely deterministic. The
person born to the wealthy family can squander his increased opportunities and end
up drunk in the slums, and it's possible that someone from the slums (less likely
in third world slums) can move up. But that takes far more effort and talent for
the one from the ghetto than the one from the wealthy family.
This difference in power due to one's place in society (structure) is real world
evidence of the kind of structural factors I'm describing. My solution is not to
level every to the same outcome. That would have negative consequences as it would
create a psychology of dependency amongst all, among other things. My solution
would be to recognize that the wealthy have their wealth partially because of where
they are in society (and what society provides), and that to avoid continued
structural discrimination they are progressively taxed in order to assure the tools
for people to help themselves are available to all. At a minimum, that's health
care, education, the basics of life. (The Dos Santos article applies structure to
dependent relations in third world states).
> In the
> interaction and social impact and all the rest of that, does "structural
> power" only count as reducing freedom when it actually reduces
> freedom--i.e. reduces the options available to the people who don't have
> it--or does it also count when it gives additional options to its
> possessors?
Structural advantage is when someone has more power in the system (thus more
options) than others due to his or her position in the system. Some are
advantaged, others are disadvantaged. It'll always be that way, I suspect, but it
is one role of government, in my opinion, to assure that those disadvantaged are
not condemned to generations of fewer opportunities because of class. Advantages
that are structurally solidified become social classes.
Now, statements like this are inappropriate:
> In other words, you are only willing to apply your concepts to systems
> complicated enough so that you don't have to think clearly about what
> they mean.
Clearly I've applied myself to the impact of structures on individuals, and
explained the genesis of structures. You have refused to delve into that level of
analysis, instead you demand I answer questions couched in your terms and say I
can't think clearly when I explain that those questions are not the kind of thing
structure deals with. If A and B do things that affects their individual outcomes,
absent external constraints due to structure (their position in society), then I
have no complaint, as long as they don't abuse their power (defined in the post I
made yesterday, the quick summation of my position). Accusing people of "not
thinking clearly" because they don't approach the question the same way you do is a
weak response.
> > > If A does something that increases C's opportunities while neither
> > > increasing nor decreasing B's opportunities, has he "unjustly limited"
> > > B? Certainly he has made it harder for B to achieve the same outcome as
> > > C.
> >
> > Again, those are not the things of social structure. Social structure
> > involves
> > relative power of actors vis-a-vis each other to constrain or empower the
> > other.
>
> Or in other words, you are unwilling to answer the question--
I did answer the question. I said that those are not the stuff of social structure
so asking that in response to my explanation of social structure is misleading,
perhaps an attempt to take the discussion away from ground you are less familiar
with. Also the question itself is so abstract to defy any certain answer. Most
likely A has done nothing wrong, but there are cases where A's actions could be
considered wrong. Without more information, it's really a question without
content. That's the way a lot of your questions are. The danger with such
abstract content-less questions is that it allows you take answers and move on,
smuggling in assumptions about various contexts and ignoring the complexi issues at
stake. That allows for the construction of a theoretically elegant model of how
society should work, but it's so simplified so as to be meaningless and
unrealistic.
(you complain I don't define what constrain and limit mean)
I believe I did, pretty clearly: a constraint is when social structures (social
structures are relationships, such relationships virtually always has an element of
power, be it simple relationships like slave/master, husband/wife, teacher/student,
or more complex relationships involving social classes. Some relationships are
voluntary or enforced by custom and tradition -- shared norms -- others use threat
of physical force or economic clout to back them up), evidenced by ones' place in
society, limit one's ability to undertake acts he or she would otherwise want to.
As noted in the post yesterday, such constraints are not *per se* illegitimate,
everyone is constrained simply by the fact others exist and choose to do things.
If you pick an apple, you constrain the ability of someone else to pick that same
apple, even if they can pick others.
Since aggregate social structures like class cannot always be visible, especially
when looking at the individual level of analysis, you recognize them by their
consequences, like the example above of obvious differences in opportunity and
power between people born at various places in society.
I WILL answer the rest of your posts later on, but I wanted to address these
points because they seem fundamental areas of misunderstanding between us.
cheers, scott
Scott Erb
Again, a couple quick reactions, a longer response later:
David Friedman wrote:
>
> > Most foreign
> > aid was military aid given to ruthless tyrants.
>
> Lots of it was economic "aid" given to governments that talked a good
> leftish democratic line.
What do you mean by "lots," and which governments talked a leftist democratic line? I
am very skeptical of your claim here.
Also, in a discussion like this pressing for specifics on claims that you aren't
really countering is inappropriate. That's debate on the cheap. If you think I'm
wrong, say so, give your opinion based on your read, and we can check out disputed
points. We both are educated, we both understand the basic issues, and there is a
wealth of knowledge in my head that I don't have cites and specifics right on hand
for. Most discussions between intelligent people don't require people to give
specific info on every claim, that's an old lawyers' trick of 'press for evidence' if
you don't know what to say. Now, if I say something and your experience suggests I'm
wrong, and you say, "No, I think you're wrong there, this is what I believe the facts
are," then we have an honest disagreement. In response I can either say, "OK, I'll
accept your view, I may be mistaken" and drop my claim, or I can say "let's try to
find information to see which of us is right on this issue." You should not press
unless you are prepared to do some work yourself to offer alternative evidence.
Otherwise, again, it's debate on the cheap, the use of the old lawyer's trick to try
to avoid the fundamental issues under discussion.
Also, I know I understand trade theory and the like, so if you try to play games and
"test" me and things like that (another old rhetoric trick, try to put an opponent on
the defensive by making him or her answer questions that don't directly relate to the
issue at hand, but are designed to create a power gap -- one person the questioner,
the other being tested -- and then you can pick at the answers and critique them that
tries to put the answerer on the defensive if you wish). I'll delete that stuff
without comment. If you have a specific point, make it, if you have a disagreement,
state it and state your view, but cease those kinds of rhetorical debate games, they
only obfuscate the issues at hand.
Again, I'll respond more fully to your posts later, hopefully I'll have time tomorrow.
cheers, scott
http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~erb/
Scott D. Erb
Hi David,
One other note: an e-mail from someone helped me see why you were attacking me on
Comparative Advantage. Part of it comes from the fact that in the 100 level
courses I explain absolute advantage (we get into how comparative advantage
operates and more specifics on trade their in the 300 level course), and I can get
careless with my wording when typing fast while posting. Here is why some
countries may not be able to benefit from comparative advantage (which you note
should be impossible according to the pure abstract theory): Some (mostly
neo-Marxian scholars) argue that in many developing countries a system of dependent
relations and a mix of modes of production (a feudal system penetrated by a
capitalist system), skews how relations develop and can lead to exploitation rather
than mutual advantage. My own view is that the big chink in the application of the
theory to developing countries is that the benefits tend to be sucked up by either
a small elite in that country, or those involved in direct foreign investment, thus
making the apparent universal benefit of comparative advantage non-existent for the
country or society as a whole. The result is that there really is no comparative
advantage for many states, even if those pushing free trade insist that logically
there must be. The reason is both political and the results of penetration into
the system by outsiders. That is why IPE (International Political Economy) tends
to be skeptical of pure economic theory (as well as political scientists who ignore
economics): the factors that intervene and complicate how the theory is applied can
render its conclusions invalid.
cheers, scott
David Friedman
the thread title.
In article <3AD45207...@maine.edu>,
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> One other note: an e-mail from someone helped me see why you were attacking
> me on
> Comparative Advantage. Part of it comes from the fact that in the 100 level
> courses I explain absolute advantage (we get into how comparative advantage
> operates and more specifics on trade their in the 300 level course), and I
> can get careless with my wording when typing fast while posting.
I don't know what you mean by "absolute advantage," but in the context I
am familiar with it is simply a mistake--the misperception of what
determines trade that was the accepted position in the 18th century and
continues to dominate popular discussions despite having been refuted by
Ricardo in the early 19th century.
When someone says "we have a trade deficit because everything is
expensive to produce here because (insert insufficient government
intervention if the argument is being made by someone on the left, too
much government intervention if it is being made by someone on the
right)" he is applying the theory of absolute advantage. It goes along
with the term "favorable balance of trade." Both are simply logical
errors.
> Here is why some
> countries may not be able to benefit from comparative advantage (which you
> note
> should be impossible according to the pure abstract theory): Some (mostly
> neo-Marxian scholars) argue that in many developing countries a system of
> dependent
> relations and a mix of modes of production (a feudal system penetrated by a
> capitalist system), skews how relations develop and can lead to exploitation
> rather than mutual advantage.
Exploitation of some people in the country by other people in the
country, or of one country by another?
> My own view is that the big chink in the application of the
> theory to developing countries is that the benefits tend to be sucked up by
> either
> a small elite in that country, or those involved in direct foreign
> investment, thus
> making the apparent universal benefit of comparative advantage non-existent
> for the
> country or society as a whole. The result is that there really is no
> comparative
> advantage for many states, even if those pushing free trade insist that
> logically there must be.
That doesn't mean that there is no comparative advantage, merely that
the gains due to taking advantage of that country's comparative
advantage are going to a small number of people. That's certainly
possible--although it is hard to see how it could happen under
laissez-faire. As long as workers own themselves, trade between capital
rich and capital poor countries, by pulling up the return to labor (and
driving down the return to capital) in the latter makes the mass of the
population better off. But it is certainly possible under communism or a
mixed economy--if, for example, the rulers use some of the gains from
trade to construct a more powerful state and use it to tax away more
than 100% of the additional income that the workers are now making.
This argument has been long and tangled, and I thought it might be
helpful if I briefly sketched what I think the issues are--in part
because I may be attacking positions you don't think you are defending,
or vice versa.
The central issue is Laissez-faire vs a mixed economy. My position is
actually more extreme than traditional laissez-faire, since my ideal
society is anarcho-capitalist, but we haven't really gotten into that.
You seem to have made the following arguments.
A. Society is complicated, hence the "simple" solution of laissez-faire
(or pure communism) can't be the right one, hence the right solution is
a mixed economy.
The answer I have been making to this is that whether the system is
complicated doesn't tell us whether the solution is complicated.
A further point I should have been making is that laissez-faire isn't a
"simple" solution in any relevant sense. On the contrary, one of the
great appeals of government control, whether full scale central planning
or "regulation," is that it is conceptually simpler, hence easier to
understand, than the decentralized market alternatives. Anyone can
understand the basic idea of a top down control system--good people
decide what should be done and order the relevant people to do it.
Understanding a decentralized market system of coordinating via private
property, trade and contract requires at least a course in price theory.
Laissez-faire is simple only in the sense of being a corner
solution--zero government involvement in many activities (not zero
government--that's anarcho-capitalism--and many people would claim that
the institutions that provide law and rights enforcement under
anarcho-capitalism are "really" government, although I would disagree).
But there is nothing odd about claiming that the best institutions for a
complicated society involve a corner solution. Presumably you take that
position too. For example, you probably want zero theocracy, zero human
sacrifice to the gods to bring rain, zero use of deliberate torture by
the police, ... . I want zero involvement by government in schooling,
mail delivery, regulating medical drugs, regulating recreational drugs,
... . Whether or not my position is correct, the mere fact that
societies are complicated isn't an argument against it.
B. Laissez-faire permits people to become rich, pass their wealth on to
their children, and create a situation with unequal opportunity, thus
restricting the liberty of the poor. Hence government must intervene to
correct the situation, presumably by taxing the rich and providing
certain things, such as schooling, to the poor.
Here the argument has gone round and round on what it means to restrict
the liberty of the poor. The point I have been making is a very simple
one, but I can't seem to get a clear response to it from you.
If lots of people become rich and leave their money to their children,
and the long run result is that those children control the political
system and use it to compel the poor to work long hours for low wages,
thus actually making the poor worse off than if the people hadn't become
rich in the first place, then the accumulation of wealth results in
restricting the liberty of the poor.
If lots of people become rich and leave their money to their children,
and the long run result is that those children have opportunities that
the children of the poor don't have--and wouldn't have if those people
had never become rich in the first place--the result is unequal
opportunity but not a restriction of the liberty of the poor.
Opportunity is unequal not because the rich have reduced the
opportunities of the poor but because the rich have increased the
opportunities available to their own children without decreasing the
opportunities of the poor.
That seems to me a simple and important distinction, and one you
continual blur by your choice of words. Several explanations occur to me:
1. You really believe that all that matters is relative wealth--as at
one point you appeared to say. That strikes me as a crazy position,
hence one you cannot really hold, a point I have made by asking you
whether you would rather be in the 90th percentile of a poor society or
the 80th percentile of a rich one.
2. You really believe that what happens under laissez-faire corresponds
to my first case, but for some reason are unwilling or unable to defend
that belief.
3. As in 2, but somehow you don't understand the question I am asking,
hence have never answered it.
C. Laissez-faire results in the rich using their power to hurt the poor,
as demonstrated by its history in 19th century England.
This part started when you described what happened in England as people
being driven off of the land (presumably by enclosure, although I don't
think you specified that) into factories in the city, where the influx
drove wages down, creating desperate poverty. I pointed out that if that
story were true, real wages should have been falling--in the
countryside, as decreased opportunities drove people out, and in the
cities, as the influx of people competed wages down. But that isn't what
happened--and I cited Ashton's book as providing the evidence that, from
about the point when laissez-faire became the accepted position (i.e.
the triumph of the anti-corn law league c. 1840), the real standard of
living of the mass of the English population trended pretty steadily up.
Hence your historical account was wrong, as were the conclusions you
drew from it.
D. Laissez-faire results in rich nations exploiting poor nations, with
the result that things don't get better for the poor nations, as
demonstrated by the present situation of the third world countries.
This partly got us into a discussion of economic theory, comparative
advantage, etc., and partly of the facts. I pointed out that the
available data (in Simon's _The Ultimate Resource_, mostly from U.N.
sources) show that conditions in the third world have been trending
generally up for as long as we have data--roughly the last fifty years.
This contradicts widely held beliefs about population problems and
increased poverty and the rest of it--one reason, along with your
picture of 19th c. England, that I have been accusing you of simply
believing conventional wisdom--but I believe correctly describes what
actually happened.
One reply you offered was that the improvement was due, not to
laissez-faire, but to U.N. efforts. That could be true--just as it could
be (I think is) true that those countries are as poor as they are
largely because of the lack of laissez-faire. My point was simply that
the factual claim you offered wasn't true.
A second reply was that the countries might be getting better off
absolutely, but were "falling behind"--i.e. getting better off more
slowly than the developed countries. That may well be true, although the
situation is confused by the fact that you seem to be eliminating from
the sample any country that has actually succeeded in getting itself out
of poverty, which means that the remaining countries are a biased
sample. But I don't see why it is relevant. What is important is whether
people are poor, not whether they are poorer than other people. That
gets us back to the relative/absolute issue. While at one point you were
willing to make what appeared to be a clear statement (that it was
relative wealth that mattered), I don't think you have ever defended it,
and have a hard time seeing how you could.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
Scott Erb <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
> To take it to the
> individual level of analysis which you prefer, if a person is born in a
> suburb to a
> wealthy family, or in a ghetto, or in a third world slum, or to third world
> elites,
> that person will be constrained and empowered in different ways in each
> social context.
>
> I think that much is undeniable, isn't it?
Yes.
> It isn't completely deterministic. The
> person born to the wealthy family can squander his increased opportunities
> and end
> up drunk in the slums, and it's possible that someone from the slums (less
> likely
> in third world slums) can move up. But that takes far more effort and talent
> for the one from the ghetto than the one from the wealthy family.
Yes.
> This difference in power due to one's place in society (structure) is real
> world
> evidence of the kind of structural factors I'm describing.
It is a fact of reality which everyone recognizes it--calling is
"evidence of the kind of structural factors ..." doesn't add anything.
> My solution is not to
> level every to the same outcome. That would have negative consequences as it
> would
> create a psychology of dependency amongst all, among other things. My
> solution
> would be to recognize that the wealthy have their wealth partially because of
> where they are in society (and what society provides),
And the poor have their wealth--less than the rich but more than
nothing--partly because of the rich. "Society" isn't a person or a moral
agent. All there are are persons.
> and that to avoid continued structural discrimination
This is the point where it seems to me you are using long words to avoid
clear thinking. Is it "structural discrimination" when I spend my time
and money helping my children rather than someone else's? If the answer
is "no," then the mere fact that some people have undeserved advantages
isn't enough to justify your use of the term.
> they are progressively taxed in order to assure the tools
> for people to help themselves are available to all. At a minimum, that's
> health care, education, the basics of life.
We really have several disagreements, moral and practical. I don't think
the implied moral argument you make is persuasive, for the reason I just
suggested--my choosing to make things better for some people doesn't
give me any obligation that I can see to also make things better for
other people, although your use of the pejorative "discrimination"
implies that it does.
The second disagreement is with the idea that the "basics of life" are
well defined. Both health care and schooling are things on which you can
spend an almost unlimited amount of money--there isn't some single
amount such that less than that is obviously inadequate and more
obviously superfluous.
The third is with the idea that people in general and the poor in
particular are better off if the government provides schooling, health
care, etc., financed through progressive taxation. We aren't choosing
among outcomes but among systems of institutions--which then generate
the outcomes they generate, not necessarily the ones we want.
Under your system, one way of getting control of resources is political
power; under mine, you get control of resources by offering someone else
a deal he is willing to accept. In my view, your system results in
people in general being poorer, and does not consistently help the poor
relative to the rich--the latter being generally better at manipulating
the levers of political power.
Consider schooling. The vast majority of people who go to public schools
aren't poor. The ultimate reason they are in public schools is that the
people who make their living out of those schools want to continue doing
so. You can see that pretty clearly every time someone runs a voucher
initiative, and the teachers' unions outspend the supporters of the
initiative by a factor of many. You can see the same factors at work if
you look at the actual history of the rise of public schooling in
England, as described by West. And if you look at the performance of the
public schools, you observe that they do a tolerable job (although I
think a worse job at a higher cost than a private system would) for
middle income people, and a very bad job for the poor. Lott also has
some statistical evidence (on international data--I can dig up the
article cite if you want) suggesting that another reason for the
prevalance of public schooling is that it makes it easier for
governments to control their populations--by controlling what they are
taught.
Ditto for the continued existence of the private express statutes, which
are the only reason the Post Office hasn't been driven out of the market
long ago. It isn't the customers that keep them, it's the postal
workers. Ditto for the farm program--paid for mostly by an implicit
regressive tax (higher food prices) and subsidizing mostly well off
people.
If you look at the rhetoric of the mixed economy, it's largely about
helping the poor. If you look at the reality, the poor are largely an
excuse for special interest legislation--which quite often hurts the
poor.
Note that your fundamental argument was what was used to justify the war
on poverty. We now know the result. Prior to the beginning of the war on
poverty, poverty had been steadily declining for at least two decades.
The war on poverty reversed that trend. Its stated purpose wasn't to
feed poor people but to get them out of poverty and dependency--and its
observed consequence, or at least what happened shortly after it got
going, was to increase the number of people in dependency.
> > In the
> > interaction and social impact and all the rest of that, does "structural
> > power" only count as reducing freedom when it actually reduces
> > freedom--i.e. reduces the options available to the people who don't have
> > it--or does it also count when it gives additional options to its
> > possessors?
> Structural advantage is when someone has more power in the system (thus more
> options) than others due to his or her position in the system. Some are
> advantaged, others are disadvantaged.
The whole metaphor of "power" implies, without any argument, that we are
talking about a zero sum game. If it means my power over you, then it is
a zero sum game. But if means my ability to do things, it isn't--that
might increase with no decrease in your ability to do things. Hence
advantaging me (again a word that implies an argument it doesn't make)
need not disadvantage you.
> (you complain I don't define what constrain and limit mean)
>
> I believe I did, pretty clearly: a constraint is when social structures
> (social
> structures are relationships, such relationships virtually always has an
> element of
> power, be it simple relationships like slave/master, husband/wife,
> teacher/student,
> or more complex relationships involving social classes. Some relationships
> are
> voluntary or enforced by custom and tradition -- shared norms -- others use
> threat
> of physical force or economic clout to back them up), evidenced by ones'
> place in
> society, limit one's ability to undertake acts he or she would otherwise want
> to.
Would otherwise "want to" or "be able to?" You still want to take the
act even if you are limited in your ability to do it.
> As noted in the post yesterday, such constraints are not *per se*
> illegitimate,
> everyone is constrained simply by the fact others exist and choose to do
> things.
> If you pick an apple, you constrain the ability of someone else to pick that
> same
> apple, even if they can pick others.
This an example where my action reduces your options. Yet you seem to be
applying exactly the same judgement where my action increases my options
without reducing yours.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
Scott Erb <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
> Again, a couple quick reactions, a longer response later:
And amazingly enough, this time it's true. I didn't think either of us
was capable of writing a short post.
>
> David Friedman wrote:
> > > Most foreign
> > > aid was military aid given to ruthless tyrants.
> > Lots of it was economic "aid" given to governments that talked a good
> > leftish democratic line.
> What do you mean by "lots," and which governments talked a leftist democratic
> line? I am very skeptical of your claim here.
Nasser. Nehru. Sukarno. Most of the African governments when they were
trying to get money from the U.S. Most of the South American governments
when they didn't happen to be being run by the military.
I said "leftish" not "leftist," incidentally--they aren't quite the same
thing. "Leftish" has more PR and less substance.
So far as "lots" being economic aid, my 1997 Stat Abstracts has a table
showing expenditure on economic and military aid from 1970 to 1995. The
"economic" figure is greater than the military in every year, and
typically about twice as great, although it varies a lot.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Gordon G. Sollars
writes...
> > I can play that game. Except I've shown more understanding of economic
> > theory here than you have.
>
> So you assert. That isn't my conclusion. Third parties can decide for
> themselves.
Am I the only third party following this delightful dialog? Sadly, my
conclusion is too easily predicted from my position to be of any
independent worth.
Let's hear from the "uncommitted", if any. ;-)
--
Gordon Sollars
gsol...@pobox.com
Rick Pasotto
Friedman wrote:
>
> That seems to me a simple and important distinction, and one you
> continual blur by your choice of words. Several explanations occur to
> me:
>
> 1. You really believe that all that matters is relative wealth--as at
> one point you appeared to say. That strikes me as a crazy position,
> hence one you cannot really hold, a point I have made by asking you
> whether you would rather be in the 90th percentile of a poor society
> or the 80th percentile of a rich one.
Someone who values power over people higher than power over nature might
very well prefer to be in the 90th percentile of a poor society.
--
"Prohibition...goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to
control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out things
that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very
principles upon which our government was founded."
-- Abraham Lincoln, Dec. 1840
Rick Pasotto email: ri...@telocity.com
Scott Erb
Rick Pasotto wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:55:13 -0700 in talk.politics.libertarian, David
> Friedman wrote:
> >
> > That seems to me a simple and important distinction, and one you
> > continual blur by your choice of words. Several explanations occur to
> > me:
> >
> > 1. You really believe that all that matters is relative wealth--as at
> > one point you appeared to say. That strikes me as a crazy position,
> > hence one you cannot really hold, a point I have made by asking you
> > whether you would rather be in the 90th percentile of a poor society
> > or the 80th percentile of a rich one.
>
> Someone who values power over people higher than power over nature might
> very well prefer to be in the 90th percentile of a poor society.
I fear any contribution to this thread since I have a stack of saved posts I
have to reply to, and have been too busy to do it.
Relative wealth is what matters for politics. For domestic politics people
look at their wealth relative to others in that society. That is simply a
political fact of life. Even our poor in America are amongst the wealthiest
people on the planet if you go relative to third world states.
For third world countries they can have some domestic stability because a
lot of their population (at least so far) tends to look at their condition
relative to others in their society. But in international relations, they
look at it relative to others in the international system. I don't see this
as an "ought" issue, but an empirical statement, this is the way politics
works, it's relative.
As for the question, I don't have enough information to answer it, it's too
vague. But however one answers it, I don't think that denies the fact that
politics is based on relative differences. Even a poor American in the 20%
range here might not want to trade places with someone better off in a poor
country, but still will politically fight because of his relative place in
this society. C'est la politique.
David Friedman
Scott Erb <scot...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Relative wealth is what matters for politics. For domestic politics people
> look at their wealth relative to others in that society. That is simply a
> political fact of life.
The context of this discussion was your argument for a mixed economy and
against laissez-faire. The fact that one of the things people look at in
evaluating their situation is how they are doing relative to others,
although surely true, doesn't have very much to do with the question of
whether we should judge a system as "restricting liberty," hence bad, if
it makes some people better off, or only if it makes some people worse
off.
It is a political fact of life that people have a tendency to dislike
foreigners and believe bad things about them on very feeble evidence,
especially when doing so lets them feel good about themselves. I
remember a good many years back listening to some strangers talk about
the Vietnamese boat people, and how as soon as they arrived our
government gave them cars and things, and why hadn't they stayed in
Vietnam (the possibility that they would have been killed apparently
didn't occur to the speaker), and similar things. It reminded me of
Orwell's comments on the response of the British to refugees from the
Nazis.
But I don't think you would jump from that observation about people to
the conclusion that a society that didn't give the majority an adequate
opportunity to mistreat suitably recognizable minorities was a bad one,
and had to be fixed.
Furthermore, insofar as the feelings you describe may raise problems in
a society, that is an argument against government involvement and
redistribution and such. In a redistributionist society, it is
reasonable for some one who ends up with less than he thinks he deserves
(i.e. almost anyone) to feel he has been cheated--after all, the
government is supposed to be making everything come out fairly. In a
laissez-faire society, income is being allocated by an impersonal
mechanism with not much more claim to give rewards in relation to desert
than the weather. The fact that you got less than you think you deserve
may be unfortunate, and a reason to rail against fate, but it doesn't
have much to do with any particular people having mistreated you.
I exaggerate somewhat; even in a laissez-faire society people can
persuade themselves that their problems are due to someone not treating
them as they deserve. People are very good at doing that. But it is
harder than in a society where the government takes some responsibility
for just outcomes.
Also, I realize you are not in favor of creating equal outcomes--but to
the extent that you give the government the responsibility of creating
equal opportunity, as I think you do to some extent, anyone who ends up
with a worse outcome than he thinks he deserves has grounds to feel he
hasn't been treated properly.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
James A. Donald
On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 16:48:24 -0700, David Friedman <dd...@best.com>
wrote:
> So far as I can tell, he is right in all three cases--while one might
> argue, after the fact, that X occurred for some different reason, in
> each case the outcome was strikingly closer to what the critics
> predicted than what the proponents predicted.
>
> My one reservation about his argument is the suspicion that one could
> probably find a fourth case (and possibly more) with the same structure
> but different protagonists. An obvious candidate is Vietnam--we withdrew
> and the dominoes didn't fall.
The dominoes did fall -- not on the scale some had feared, but on a
very substantial scale nonetheless.
The collapse of containment arguably forced the US to go to the more
dangerous, but less costly, strategy of rollback. Before the
collapse, it had been political suicide to advocate rollback. After
the collapse, the public voted for rollback.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
Ppki7NWywaeNczM4WtXe9I2EQKymXU69zEPLgqQd
41HvCjiZFKclgIvhV6beP3YVY8AFfvpVQZrWROVz2
------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
James A. Donald
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 21:25:43 -0700, David Friedman <dd...@best.com>
wrote:
> I admit that I am not sure I fully understand Marx,
> but from the parts I do understand he appears to be simply a step
> backwards from Ricardo.
Marx did not fully understand Marx.
He intitially put forward a position that was simple, easy to
understand, and wrong. He subsequently emitted a wandering cloud of
fog obfuscating his errors. As a result, his writings are like the
bible. Each particular faction of Marxists can find the holy texts
they prefer, and find in those holy texts the meaning they prefer,
while some other Marxist faction finds a different meaning in
different fragments of the Marxist holy texts.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
N25IqbRDPsPAA0w1ZJbkzaLD9ZA/YKu8nPU8jUqB
4NcZp0QubndMv/oYIRMjbDv1MRtJuHM28aQ9H4hcS
James A. Donald
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:04:26 GMT, Scott Erb
<vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
> Also, I know I understand trade theory and the like,
No, you understand Marxist trade theory. You have repeatedly
demonstrated total staggering ignorance of anything that is not
Marxist.
You are not even aware that no one takes Marxist trade theory
seriously any more. In all your posts, in all these years, you have
never demonstrated any knowledge of any matter, other than what is
obtained from Marxist sources.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
4IxdDACmlD7fC4+L2S12D3x1zpcLuxCvZSeUAJCE
4Pb21LvyBkJwGaaukSyHQYaD378Dib2UZHlRuGtWz
Scott Erb
David Friedman wrote:
-again, some snips to get to the core issues-
> > Here is why some
> > countries may not be able to benefit from comparative advantage (which you
> > note
> > should be impossible according to the pure abstract theory): Some (mostly
> > neo-Marxian scholars) argue that in many developing countries a system of
> > dependent
> > relations and a mix of modes of production (a feudal system penetrated by a
> > capitalist system), skews how relations develop and can lead to exploitation
> > rather than mutual advantage.
>
> Exploitation of some people in the country by other people in the
> country, or of one country by another?
A bit of both, seeing the country as a collective. Poor Americans live better
than most people in third world countries because of the benefits they receive
from being in a core country that gains the raw materials and has the lead in the
global economy. That is part of the structural benefits that give Americans
considerable more life options than your average third world citizen (just like
the suburban American has more options than the one born in the ghetto). But the
specific acts are often by other collectives (governments, corporations of
financial institutions) or individuals that are most often part of these
institutions. Governments are really not that much different than businesses,
they are collective organizations designed to achieve goals and promote the power
of their collective.
> > My own view is that the big chink in the application of the
> > theory to developing countries is that the benefits tend to be sucked up by
> > either
> > a small elite in that country, or those involved in direct foreign
> > investment, thus
> > making the apparent universal benefit of comparative advantage non-existent
> > for the
> > country or society as a whole. The result is that there really is no
> > comparative
> > advantage for many states, even if those pushing free trade insist that
> > logically there must be.
>
> That doesn't mean that there is no comparative advantage, merely that
> the gains due to taking advantage of that country's comparative
> advantage are going to a small number of people. That's certainly
> possible--although it is hard to see how it could happen under
> laissez-faire.
Well if you could have pure laissez-faire without those who start doing well
working politically and socially to secure your advantage, then perhaps it could.
But humans are pretty smart, they get an advantage, they work to hold on to it.
Neither of us can pretend to know for sure what would happen, but my view is that
if you start with laissez-faire, you'd get early winners making deals to begin
Mafia gangs that would turn over time into governments. In my opinion the only
way a system not relying on government coercion for order will succeed is if there
is cultural change and a real ability to hold the use of all power accountable to
the people in some way. But that goes beyond the third world issue...
> As long as workers own themselves,
Owning oneself is a bit non-sensical. We exist. The issue is what opportunities
one has. Markets can have a glut of workers and few jobs. In such conditions,
workers have few opportunities, their freedom is limited, and industrialists can
create sweat shops and other ways to get the workers to make them a lot of money,
money they can bring as profits back to first world countries or put in their
pockets.
> trade between capital
> rich and capital poor countries, by pulling up the return to labor (and
> driving down the return to capital) in the latter makes the mass of the
> population better off. But it is certainly possible under communism or a
> mixed economy--if, for example, the rulers use some of the gains from
> trade to construct a more powerful state and use it to tax away more
> than 100% of the additional income that the workers are now making.
Its possible even without the state. industrialists who gain from using cheap
labor might be tempted to create a state or a Mafia style enforcement gain to
enforce their advantage and thwart competition...without a government to prevent
that, especially in third world states where there is no actor as wealthy and
technologically advanced, it seems more rather than less likely.
> This argument has been long and tangled, and I thought it might be
> helpful if I briefly sketched what I think the issues are--in part
> because I may be attacking positions you don't think you are defending,
> or vice versa.
>
> The central issue is Laissez-faire vs a mixed economy. My position is
> actually more extreme than traditional laissez-faire, since my ideal
> society is anarcho-capitalist, but we haven't really gotten into that.
> You seem to have made the following arguments.
>
> A. Society is complicated, hence the "simple" solution of laissez-faire
> (or pure communism) can't be the right one, hence the right solution is
> a mixed economy.
That's simplifying and universalizing my claim. Given the complexities of a
multicausal system and the problem of perspective, that each of us can interpret
aspects of the system in different ways, often in accord with our theoretical
biases, I am extremely skeptical of those who offer what appear to be simple
universal ways to understand and organize the world. Historically I haven't seen
any time that has worked (though many have tried), and I would need a considerable
amount of real world evidence to believe it.
> The answer I have been making to this is that whether the system is
> complicated doesn't tell us whether the solution is complicated.
>
> A further point I should have been making is that laissez-faire isn't a
> "simple" solution in any relevant sense. On the contrary, one of the
> great appeals of government control, whether full scale central planning
> or "regulation," is that it is conceptually simpler, hence easier to
> understand, than the decentralized market alternatives. Anyone can
> understand the basic idea of a top down control system--good people
> decide what should be done and order the relevant people to do it.
> Understanding a decentralized market system of coordinating via private
> property, trade and contract requires at least a course in price theory.
I think you underestimate what it requires. You're bringing to the whole debate a
set of cultural values, norms and understandings through which you interpret not
just how the current system operates, but how a different system might operate. I
understand you believe this kind of system could handle diversity because it
doesn't try to coerce behavior. Certainly theoretically this kind of system COULD
exist, as could many other systems. But it doesn't naturally develop, no system
does. All systems are social constructs, resting on shared beliefs and
understanding which persist over time and shape interests, how rationality is
calculated, expectations, etc.
In principle the exercise of trying to imagine a "best" system is good --
imagination is the first step towards changing social reality. I think Hegel said
"once the realm of imagination has been breached, reality cannot help but
follow." The danger is if you underestimate the amount of conformity in belief
about the rules of the game and the nature of one's identity within the system
that it takes to make the system work. I think a mistake too many economists make
is to treat economic theory like a religion, like a "way the world works" template
upon which one can build explanations for anything (much like religions can
interpret all reality within their belief system). That leads especially to
errors in prediction about the future or how things would work under different
conditions, an error that doomed Marx's thought.
> Laissez-faire is simple only in the sense of being a corner
> solution--zero government involvement in many activities (not zero
> government--that's anarcho-capitalism--and many people would claim that
> the institutions that provide law and rights enforcement under
> anarcho-capitalism are "really" government, although I would disagree).
Mafias can act as defacto governments; modern government, as Charles Tilly notes
in his history of the modern state, arose much like organized crime, with
monarchies starting as something like a protection racket. We now associate
government with the ideas of sovereignty and territoriality, which really have
only been institutionalized since the Treaty of Westphalia. Governments can exist
in different forms and have different philosophical foundations.
> But there is nothing odd about claiming that the best institutions for a
> complicated society involve a corner solution. Presumably you take that
> position too. For example, you probably want zero theocracy, zero human
> sacrifice to the gods to bring rain, zero use of deliberate torture by
> the police, ... . I want zero involvement by government in schooling,
> mail delivery, regulating medical drugs, regulating recreational drugs,
> ... . Whether or not my position is correct, the mere fact that
> societies are complicated isn't an argument against it.
Theocracy is interesting. There is a debate now if Iran's attempt to create a
theocratic democracy, or an Islamic democracy with the Koran as its constitution,
interpreted by elder religious leaders, might not be as legitimate a form fitting
their culture as a Democratic Republic based on liberalism, with the constitution
as its guide, and nine justices interpreting that constitution. The issue of
human rights is also difficult, especially when one crosses cultural boundaries
and the issue of sovereignty comes up. Certainly I would personally prefer that
everyone treat each other right, work together, not steal, not kill, not hurt, and
have fun. Still, I think you misunderstand my objection. I'm not saying
complexity makes it impossible for a simple solution to work, only that
historically speaking most people have developed extreme skepticism of simple
solutions, and would demand considerable evidence before embracing them,
especially across cultures and contexts.
> B. Laissez-faire permits people to become rich, pass their wealth on to
> their children, and create a situation with unequal opportunity, thus
> restricting the liberty of the poor. Hence government must intervene to
> correct the situation, presumably by taxing the rich and providing
> certain things, such as schooling, to the poor.
>
> Here the argument has gone round and round on what it means to restrict
> the liberty of the poor. The point I have been making is a very simple
> one, but I can't seem to get a clear response to it from you.
>
> If lots of people become rich and leave their money to their children,
> and the long run result is that those children control the political
> system and use it to compel the poor to work long hours for low wages,
> thus actually making the poor worse off than if the people hadn't become
> rich in the first place, then the accumulation of wealth results in
> restricting the liberty of the poor.
>
> If lots of people become rich and leave their money to their children,
> and the long run result is that those children have opportunities that
> the children of the poor don't have--and wouldn't have if those people
> had never become rich in the first place--the result is unequal
> opportunity but not a restriction of the liberty of the poor.
> Opportunity is unequal not because the rich have reduced the
> opportunities of the poor but because the rich have increased the
> opportunities available to their own children without decreasing the
> opportunities of the poor.
Perhaps the rich have increased the opportunities of the poor in absolute terms,
but that is not the issue. The issue is their relative power, the power
differential. The issue is whether one class has more liberty, more opportunity,
based on their place within society than another class due to structural power
differential. If so, then the fact their material earnings may be increasing is
totally irrelevant to the issue. I've already noted the poor in the US are much
better off than even the wealthy in third world states, and they are better off
materially than the poor of the past.
Material wealth is not what matters. Politically and socially what matters is
status, and the opportunity to achieve what anyone else in that society can
achieve without having to overcome major obstacles put in place by nature of your
position in society.
> That seems to me a simple and important distinction, and one you
> continual blur by your choice of words. Several explanations occur to me:
>
> 1. You really believe that all that matters is relative wealth--as at
> one point you appeared to say. That strikes me as a crazy position,
> hence one you cannot really hold, a point I have made by asking you
> whether you would rather be in the 90th percentile of a poor society or
> the 80th percentile of a rich one.
Your position has a fundamental flaw. For it to be true, any time someone's
absolute wealth increases, no matter what the change in the wealth of others, they
are better off and thus should have no complaint about how the system is
operating. THAT strikes me as a crazy position. Of course I'd rather be in the
80th percentile of a rich society. But in that society I focus on promoting equal
opportunity within that society to prevent structural power differentials from
benefiting some and constraining others. Just because one would rather be in a
wealthy society and not a poor society does not in any logical sense mean that
they are constrained from criticizing the way that wealth is distrubuted or power
structured in that wealthy society. Your response is like the rich telling the
poor "don't complain, you were worse off in the past and would be worse off if you
lived in Angola, so the fact we're earning a lot more than you shouldn't bother
you." Perhaps you think that is a legitimate position, but I certainly don't.
> 2. You really believe that what happens under laissez-faire corresponds
> to my first case, but for some reason are unwilling or unable to defend
> that belief.
>
> 3. As in 2, but somehow you don't understand the question I am asking,
> hence have never answered it.
>
> C. Laissez-faire results in the rich using their power to hurt the poor,
> as demonstrated by its history in 19th century England.
Oh, one can see that now. Try to take on a big corporation, look at company
towns, etc. Big money = big power. That's not limited to the industrial
revolution.
>This part started when you described what happened in England as people
> being driven off of the land (presumably by enclosure, although I don't
> think you specified that) into factories in the city, where the influx
> drove wages down, creating desperate poverty. I pointed out that if that
> story were true, real wages should have been falling--in the
> countryside, as decreased opportunities drove people out, and in the
> cities, as the influx of people competed wages down. But that isn't what
> happened--and I cited Ashton's book as providing the evidence that, from
> about the point when laissez-faire became the accepted position (i.e.
> the triumph of the anti-corn law league c. 1840), the real standard of
> living of the mass of the English population trended pretty steadily up.
> Hence your historical account was wrong, as were the conclusions you
> drew from it.
I'm not convinced. First, when you say real wages were up, is that aggregate for
the whole society, or just for the workers? More importantly 1840 was probably
the low point, it's the time that inspired Marx and Engels, and started socialist
movements and pressure on government to reform. After 1840 you saw the rise of
government reforms, and industrialists reacted to those pressures -- fear of
revolt, attempts to avoid government intervention. So it certainly is not clear
from the evidence you've cited that the 1800-1840 period was a steady rise, or
that the rise that I agree started by the middle of the 19th century was due to
natural economic developments or the twin fears of socialism and government
intervention.
> D. Laissez-faire results in rich nations exploiting poor nations, with
> the result that things don't get better for the poor nations, as
> demonstrated by the present situation of the third world countries.
>
> This partly got us into a discussion of economic theory, comparative
> advantage, etc., and partly of the facts. I pointed out that the
> available data (in Simon's _The Ultimate Resource_, mostly from U.N.
> sources) show that conditions in the third world have been trending
> generally up for as long as we have data--roughly the last fifty years.
> This contradicts widely held beliefs about population problems and
> increased poverty and the rest of it--one reason, along with your
> picture of 19th c. England, that I have been accusing you of simply
> believing conventional wisdom--but I believe correctly describes what
> actually happened.
I'm afraid that these absolute figures are not enough to deny the power
differential. If relative differences are growing, then its like throwing some
extra scraps of bread to keep them happy. If a master owns a slave and the slave
lives in squalor while his work gets the master increasingly wealthy, and the
master now and then throws some extra slices of bread the slaves' way and says,
"look, you're getting almost twice as much food -- six slices of bread, two
turnips, two bottles of beer, and a half a pound of meat -- than you did three
years ago when you started, and it continues to increase. Your bed is now made of
straw where you used to sleep on the floor, and I've cut your work day from 12
hours a day to 11. You're better off, don't complain," does that mean that the
slave has no reason to complain? Oh, I know, we're not talking about slaves. But
if power differentials keep the structure of the system such that the poor are
structurally constrained from being able to achieve the same kind of development,
it's a similar sort of constraint. Slavery is simply more overt, economic and
social structures less visible. (Roy Bhaskar's essay on *The Possibility of
Naturalism*, Harvard UP, 1979 -- a great book, talks about structural visibility
and the issue of 'natural law' or 'natural rights' vis-a-vis concerns of social
structure.)
> One reply you offered was that the improvement was due, not to
> laissez-faire, but to U.N. efforts. That could be true--just as it could
> be (I think is) true that those countries are as poor as they are
> largely because of the lack of laissez-faire. My point was simply that
> the factual claim you offered wasn't true.
I can't speak to the lack of laissez faire so much as to the fact that the
economies are dominated by the North-South relationship which continues the
penetration of these countries started with colonialism. Maybe without that
penetration natural laissez-faire could start there and economic systems can
develop. Perhaps the problems I point out is one major reason WHY that isn't
happening. In fact, maybe social structures of the kind I discuss even within
advanced industrial societies are the reason why you don't see any kind of move
towards laissez faire capitalism, and why it doesn't seem to work. I think
markets ARE good ways to organize economies, but structural power differentials
that emerge from markets work to hamper their ability to function as a theory
might predict.
> A second reply was that the countries might be getting better off
> absolutely, but were "falling behind"--i.e. getting better off more
> slowly than the developed countries. That may well be true, although the
> situation is confused by the fact that you seem to be eliminating from
> the sample any country that has actually succeeded in getting itself out
> of poverty, which means that the remaining countries are a biased
> sample. But I don't see why it is relevant. What is important is whether
> people are poor, not whether they are poorer than other people.
You seem to think that relative measures don't matter, when it seems to me that
relative measures are all that matter, at least politically and socially. Not
only in the slave example above, but just in every day life. Social life is
relative.
> That
> gets us back to the relative/absolute issue. While at one point you were
> willing to make what appeared to be a clear statement (that it was
> relative wealth that mattered), I don't think you have ever defended it,
> and have a hard time seeing how you could.
I have a hard time seeing how you can defend a claim that absolute wealth is what
matters. Should the slave above, or a wage laborer if you want to get out of the
slavery issue, be satsified with any absolute increase, no matter how little the
starting point, and no matter how much more of an increase the wealthy are
getting? Humans don't measure things that way, I don't think they ever well,
measurement by definition is relative. I really can't see how one can dismiss
that. That seems a real fundamental disagreement we have on this point.
cheers, scott
Scott Erb
David Friedman wrote:
-snip unimportant stuff to get to the issues-
> Then where do you get your "solution"--i.e. your best guess at the right
> answer? Facts don't speak for themselves.
>
> I think what you really mean is "I don't think your theory can provide
> the solution, but I think my theory does." If that isn't what you are
> saying, then what is your basis for any conclusion about what
> institutions we should have--in particular, the conclusion that the
> optimum is a mixed economy rather than pure laissez-faire (or, for that
> matter, pure centrally planned communism)?
I don't believe any theory gives us a solution, neither mine nor yours. I don't
think any system ever will be eternal. That seems to be the lesson of history.
Following the arguments of Berger and Luckmann, Giddens, Wendt, and others in the
"social constructionist" or "constructivist" tradition, my approach is to see
social reality as a human construct, built upon both human nature, and shared
understandings and norms. Economics is not outside culture, nor is it an objective
stand alone project which can provide any long term perfect abstract solution.
That is my disagreement with both radical Marxists and radical capitalists (though
I believe Adam Smith himself noted that some kind of civil society and rule of law
is necessary for capitalism to function).
Thus the desire to fund "a solution" is a bit of hubris, inevitably based on
simplifications and assumptions we make, usually projecting our own biases and
interpretations of reality. So I'm not doing anything so bold as to try to offer a
theory with a solution.
> > Also, given the importance of culture and
> > our ability to remold social reality over time, a "right" solution in one
> > time and place might not work in another.
>
> Could be. You were the one trying to make arguments about how
> laissez-faire didn't work in the 19th century and had to be corrected by
> government intervention (mistaken arguments, I think, but the arguments
> you were making). If we can't use evidence from one time to figure out
> what is right for another, why were you bothering to make those
> arguments? We aren't in the 19th century any more.
Think through what you just wrote. I said a right solution in one time and place
might not work in another. I did not say that the right solution in one time and
place could not work in another, and I certainly did not say we can't learn from
past situations. Too often you take statements of mine and make it sound like I
took an extreme position when I have not. In fact, constructivist theory notes
that we remold society only by transforming or reproducing current social
structures, with reproduction much more likely than transformation. That suggests
that except during periods of extreme systemic instability there will be
considerable links to the best. History is therefore VERY important. Furthermore,
patterns of change and behavior in the past are often sticky and persist for long
periods (look at the Balkans, for instance). There is nothing in my statement to
suggest that history is irrelevant, only that in different times the conclusion of
the analysis of what will work best might be different due to different
circumstances. Understanding and learning from history would be very important for
such an effort.
> Evidence, mostly about other times and places, plus theory are all we've
> got. I have no objection to your arguing that they aren't adequate for a
> very high degree of certainty about what the right institutions are--I
> agree with that claim. But that isn't your position--you are far more
> confident that your solution (a mixed economy roughly along current
> lines) is right than I am that my solution (anarcho-capitalism) is
> right. You can't support your confidence that your position is right by
> offering arguments for why any position might be wrong.
I'm as certain as almost anything in politics that not only wouldn't
anarcho-capitalism work (it would likely lead to the reformation of governments and
the rise of Mafias, in my opinion), and even more convinced that given current
shared understandings and beliefs about politics, and the nature of our political
culture, that there is no chance of any significant move towards either
anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-socialism in the foreseeable future. In the long,
long run perhaps humans will learn to interact without government, perhaps in a
type of system neither of us in these very early days of human history when we're
still killing each other over pieces of land or what God we worship can imagine.
Indeed, I suspect some kind of "libertarian" future is likely, though if history is
a guide it won't be anything we theorize today like anarcho-capitalism or left
libertarianism. Usually what comes is something people weren't expecting. I have
no reason to believe you or I have the key to suddenly understanding the mysteries
of human progress, especially as humans can make it up as they go through cultural
change.
> Do you mean that literacy has gone up more in countries where the
> government spent more? Do you happen to know how per capita spending on
> schooling varies across countries? You might want to check the numbers
> before making such an assertion.
Honestly, while I could -- I know I've read this before (UNESCO spending and
programs, as well as the spread of education elsewhere...clealry Cuba's increased
literacy dramatically from the time of Batista to the present) -- I'm not sure what
the point would be to spend the time it would take to look up the information again
and check the exact numbers. If you choose not to believe me, I guess I have to
accept that you think I'm wrong.
> Or do you mean "in the 20th century, literacy went up and governments
> provided schooling?" That's a pretty weak argument, given that lots of
> other things were happening, most notably large increases in real
> income. And it is even weaker if you look at the data (see West's book,
> which I already cited), and discover that literacy was rising before the
> government got involved (in England).
...and given the complexity and multicausal nature of social reality, BOTH of us
can interpret the evidence in accord with the theories. The fact that literacy was
rising in England meant it was becoming more important for social life. That
further meant that there would be a demand for education from those who could not
afford private tutoring or private schools. Hence that increase before government
got involved might even be evidence that government was responding to a societal
demand. On an issue like this, we can each interpret the evidence to fit our own
view, and I know of no test that can provide conclusive proof either way. In Cuba
it is impossible to deny that the Castro regime made vast improvements in literacy
and healthcare for the population (at other costs, to be sure -- and I'm comparing
him with Battista, not with a democratic system). But the evidence seems to
strongly indicate that government sponsored efforts make a big difference. I can't
absolutely prove that any more than you can absolutely prove your theory.
> > Maybe government isn't the causal
> > factor, but it certainly does not seem to be making matters worse.
> > I've NEVER seen evidence to suggest that.
>
> You have seen no evidence at all about relative performance, in the
> U.S., of public schools and the various non-public systems? How about
Too many variables. I went to public schools in South Dakota which produced some
of the highest SAT scores in the nation and had a college attendance rate of about
75%. Many private schools don't approach that (indeed, the private school i the
city was known as the least academic). But in places with wealth differences,
suburban public schools can be very good, while inner city public schools or public
schools in depressed regions can be very poor. They run the entire spectrum.
Private schools tend to be the schools for elites and/or motivated children. Hence
the fact they are private is most likely not the most important causal factor.
However, if you want to provide evidence that supports a causal link in your claim
between the fact they are private and their performance (in comparison to public
schools), I'll look at the argument and evidence.
> evidence on what happened to American schooling from 1960 to 1980? You
> can find the data summarized in Peltzman's "The Political Economy of the
> Decline of American Public Education", Journal of Political Economy c.
> 1993.
I'll look at this, but note that this supports the idea that something else is
causal -- why would public education be better in 1960 (we've had public education
a long, long time) then in 1980? Obviously, other factors are at work, it can't
just be that the government is involved since the government was involved before.
Government is involved in European and Japanese schools, but they have very high
standards of public education. The East bloc had an excellent system as well. So
the causal factor is unlikely simply the participation of government.> > Highway
traffic is a complex and dynamic system. The rule "you must stop
> > > at a red light" is a simple rule. Do you conclude that that rule must be
> > > wrong?
> >
> > That is a socially constructed norm, reinforced by law.
>
> True but irrelevant. Is it a bad rule? It's a simple one. You are the
> one who is claiming that complicated systems must have complicated
> solutions.
>
> > Certainly you can see
> > socially constructed norms in domestic and political systems, and they can
> > indeed be reinforced by law.
>
> And you gradually glide away from answering the question, which wasn't
> about whether there exist socially constructed norms reinforced by laws
> but about whether the solution to a complicated system must itself be
> complicated.
You misword your question. You are asking if the solution to a complicated PROBLEM
(controlling traffic flows) requires a complicated solution. To some extent, it
does. Traffic flows aren't controlled only by traffic lights, but also many other
regulations and rules of the road. As to explaining a complicated system, traffic
is a rather UNCOMPLICATED system when compared to understanding social reality as a
whole. There is in fact a rather simple set of shared rules and procedures that
work across cultures for traffic flows, it's an easily contained problem. Even
then a lot of people die each year in accidents. I don't see this at all as
analogous to explaining social reality that includes a myriad of diverse issues
such as traffic flows, often more complicated and involving real battles over
material or cultural values.
> > But that's not the same as a universal theory saying what
> > system is best, it's a very different thing - the former is a human construct
> > designed to make traffic flow, the latter is a human theory about what kind
> > of economic and political system is best.
>
> I didn't say anything in this part of the discussion about a universal
> theory saying what system is best. I was challenging your undefended
> claim that the right answer couldn't be simple--couldn't, for example,
> be laissez-faire capitalism with no government regulation.
Correction: I see no reason to believe it can be so simple, I am skeptical of any
such claim and would require considerable real world evidence before I'd believe it
could work.
Scott Erb
David Friedman wrote:
-snip some bits that are tagential or repetitive with other posts in this thread,
so I can try to hit the main points. If I snip anything of importance please let
me know and I'll go back and address it.
> I don't think so. I admit that I am not sure I fully understand Marx,
> but from the parts I do understand he appears to be simply a step
> backwards from Ricardo. I cannot think of any element in the structure
> of ideas I work with as an economist that comes from him.
Marx himself was pretty focused on domestic economics and not much at all about the
international system. This influence on those studying International Political
Economy comes from his promotion of a systemic theory (structural) and how what
capitalist economics considers free, voluntary exchanges can actually be mechanisms
of exploitation. I don't think any of the theories I've talked about have more
than a passing nod at Marx. I think the tradition I've brought up concerning the
third world developed more from the thinking of J.A. Hobson, and his 1902 study *On
Imperialism.*
> I will, however, concede that he was a first rate rhetorician. Volume I
> of _Capital_, viewed as fiction, is in the same class as Stapledon's
> _Last and First Men_, and his vituperation is right up there with Rand's.
I've compared Marxists with Randians before, so I see your point. But the real
impact Marx made was less in the specifics, and more in the linking of politics and
economics, and the questioning of what actually drives market economic systems. He
was wrong, but his new way of thinking opened new doors down the line, a similar
sort of fate awaited a lot of early social scientists who in the 19th century were
far too optimistic in their ability to understand social reality. Clearly his
motives were understandable.
You are also right about his lack of understanding of a lot of economic issues. He
would often send his drafts to his collegue, a successful businessman named
Friedrich Engels who, from his experience in the business world, would correct and
alter Marx's ideas on how markets function. Engels also was driven by good
intentions: Could you really look out at the squalor of the industrial revolution
in England and see the child labor, low wages, and lack of opportunity for the
workers and not think, "damn, these people shouldn't take it, they have numbers,
they should rise up!" Engels once stood looking over I believe Manchester with an
industrialist and commented on the wretched conditions. The industrialist just
replied, "yes, but a lot of money is being made here."
> > The biggest insight from Marx was on the power of class and social
> > structure, and his focus on exploitation.
>
> I would have said that his focus on exploitation was one of the parts of
> the theory that made no sense--and gradually got converted from
> economics to philosophy as he elaborated the economic theory.
No, it's still an economic concept, it just isn't mainstream neo-classical
economics as practiced in the U.S.
> > His biggest error was
> > over-determination and his inability to accept democracy. He assumed that if
> > you get rid of exploitation you'd get a socialist utopia; perhaps, but you
> > don't
> > get rid of exploitation with a revolution, you'd have to change how people
> > think. That's politics and culture, and any theory that doesn't recognize
> > the
> > profound impact of politics and culture is bound to fail. Such theories
> > smuggle
> > in the author's own cultural and philosophical biases believing those biases
> > to
> > be human nature or the way other people would think if totally free.
>
> How about the fact that he wildly mispredicted what would happen under
> laissez-faire capitalism? He said the rich would get richer and the poor
> get poorer. In fact both the rich and the poor got richer.
More importantly he underestimated the state and imperialism. He thought the state
would inevitably be in control of individual capitalists who would thwart laws
protecting workers or limiting monopolies, and would never engage in social welfare
reform. Left on its own, he predicted capitalism would lead to the gradual
elimination of competition as the bigger companies overtook the smaller ones, and
workers would be even more exploited as they tried to gain more advantage.
Instead, the state intervened to give the workers a voice and protect their basic
rights and grant social welfare programs (though not enough to really alter the
balance of power), something which hurt many individual capitalists. The state was
protecting the capitalist system, NOT individual capitalists. More importantly,
the imperialism allowed the benefits Marx thought would be gained only by squeezing
workers more to be achieved by squeezing colonies. I'm still open minded about
whether its possible for to have a long term stable capitalist system, or if in the
long run many of the contradictions Marx noticed will lead to a major crisis and
destroy the capitalist system just as Feudalism was destroyed (if so, I think Marx
was dead wrong that some kind of utopian communism would emerge afterwards --
whatever the new system, it can be better or worse).
Another error Marx made is that he didn't account for the impact of new
technologies on productivity and total output, meaning that the chance for profit
growth along with a better distribution of wealth to the workers is possible. If
capitalism as a system can survive for the long term, that will be the key.
Accordingly, worker revolt or something like that is not what would bring it down.
Either ecological catastrophe caused by the technological breakthroughs (sort of
ironic) or a major North-South schism could bring the system down. I have no
prediction at this time, it's just interesting to watch and try to figure out the
dynamics of the international system.
Eagle Eye
Ron Allen <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[snip]
>Eagle Eye wrote:
>> Socialism is about collective rights, not individual rights.
>Ron Allen answers:
>As democratic, socialism is about collective rights.
>As libertarian, socialism is about individual rights.
>
>Majority rule is the collective rights side of socialism.
>Minority rights is the private and personal rights side
>of socialism.
I fail to see how you connect socialism to these concepts.
>You can define socialism so that it excludes individual
>rights by definition, or you can define socialism so
>that it includes individual rights by definition.
I realize that the word is easily shaped into convenient
definitions. The hard, cold truth is that socialism, in
practice, does not fit many of these theories.
>It is interesting to note that those who define socialism
>so that it excludes individual rights are the anti-
>socialists, and those who define socialism so that it
>includes individual rights are the pro-socialists.
It's no accident that socialist countries, while purporting
to represent "the people" best, have murdered incredible
numbers of people, as well as squashing personal freedoms.
>Question: Who ought to define socialism? Socialists?
>Or anti-socialists?
Shall the lamb allow the wolf to define himself as a different
type of lamb to gain access to the farm?
>Eagle Eye wrote:
>> When the government denies individuals economic liberty, it is a lie
>> to call it "libertarian."
>Ron Allen answers:
>That is true and correct.
>
>Socialism is not about a bourgeois police state denying
>economic liberty.
History begs to differ. Nearly 100,000,000 people would say otherwise
if they weren't murdered.
>There are those who believe the only possible expression of
>individual economic liberty is a free-market expression of
>bourgeois liberty. And there are others (libertarian social
>democrats) who believe the best possible expression of individual
>economic liberty is a market-free expression of political and
>economic liberty, a free-sharing and gift-giving economy.
If you mandate a "market-free" system, how do you not deny
economic liberty to people who want to choose, as individuals,
what values they trade with others?
=====
EE
Scott Erb
like this make the usual internet flame crap worth enduring.
David Friedman wrote:
Structures are social relations. Again, Giddens' work in sociology is pretty good,
I prefer structurationists or constructivists to the more determinist structural
theories of Marxian scholars, though Althusser and Levi-Strauss are worth at least
looking at. Structure has been pretty well explained in these and other sources,
essentially that power relations within society create social positions which
either empower or constrain those in that position. Structuralists see these as
deterministic (sort of the mirror image of those who say a person is totally
responsible for their place in life), while structurationists and constructivists
look at the agent as able to play a role to try to transform or, more likely,
reproduce existing social structures. The bottom line: since these are based on
power relations they are as real as overt force and power, just not as visible.
> > My solution is not to
> > level every to the same outcome. That would have negative consequences as it
> > would
> > create a psychology of dependency amongst all, among other things. My
> > solution
> > would be to recognize that the wealthy have their wealth partially because of
> > where they are in society (and what society provides),
>
> And the poor have their wealth--less than the rich but more than
> nothing--partly because of the rich. "Society" isn't a person or a moral
> agent. All there are are persons.
But if poor are structurally disadvantaged due to their place in society...NOT
simply due to the fact they are poor. IF they are poor and have similar
opportunities and chances as the rich and simply choose not to engage in them, then
the outcome is a result of their choices. If all humans have equal value and
dignity as humans, then this structural power differential is a type of hidden
indirect "weak" slavery, creating barriers that are not easily overcome. That is
why the existence of these social structures is so important to my approach, they
are something I believe a lot of laissez faire capitalists overlook, leading to an
acceptance of persistent class difference in a society. (Now, you may have a point
that such structures are enhanced by government action -- I think you do -- but
that would be a different argument than whether or not these structures exist or if
they are legitimate, it would be an argument about how to best eliminate them.
> > and that to avoid continued structural discrimination
>
> This is the point where it seems to me you are using long words to avoid
> clear thinking. Is it "structural discrimination" when I spend my time
> and money helping my children rather than someone else's? If the answer
> is "no," then the mere fact that some people have undeserved advantages
> isn't enough to justify your use of the term.
I've explained this before. You do not see structural discrimination in individual
acts and choices. You see it how a person's position in society constrains them
from making (or empowers them to make) particular choices or access different
opportunities. If because of your place in society the amount of money and help
you give your child creates a structural advantage for your child vis-a-vis
children of poorer families who can't afford to access the same opportunities, and
thus makes it more likely they will remain poor while your family remains wealthy,
then there is evidence of structural discrimination; your place in society provided
opportunities.
The answer is NOT to simply level everyone out. But certainly it could strengthen
society and add to all our wealth if opportunities were provided so that despite
one's place in society they would have access to the education and health care
necessary to succeed, and would not be subject to discrimination unrelated to their
ability to do their job. There is a lot of latent talent untapped because of
structural constraints (and a lot of untalented people gliding through without
contributing much due to their structural advantages). No, I don't have specific
evidence that gives numers on that, but it is an observation I've made being in
both words at various times -- the world of the wealthy and upper class, and the
world of the working class.
> > they are progressively taxed in order to assure the tools
> > for people to help themselves are available to all. At a minimum, that's
> > health care, education, the basics of life.
>
> We really have several disagreements, moral and practical. I don't think
> the implied moral argument you make is persuasive, for the reason I just
> suggested--my choosing to make things better for some people doesn't
> give me any obligation that I can see to also make things better for
> other people, although your use of the pejorative "discrimination"
> implies that it does.
But if your ABILITY to do things comes from a structural advantage you have that
others don't, then there may indeed be a moral issue. That issue is whether or
not your actions help fix in a social structure that creates separate classes of
people, with different status, whereby one group becomes constrained over time to
have the same opportunities as another. I think that is ethically wrong and
justifies collective action to correct, albeit with minimal intrusion. An ethical
question like this cannot be answered objectively, of course, it is an inherently
political question. Whether or not structures exist and operate as I believe is a
question that can be addressed with objective evidence. Interpreting that evidence
is the tricky part.
> The second disagreement is with the idea that the "basics of life" are
> well defined. Both health care and schooling are things on which you can
> spend an almost unlimited amount of money--there isn't some single
> amount such that less than that is obviously inadequate and more
> obviously superfluous.
The fact there is no clear definition does not mean we can't make an educated guess
on what level and kind of education and health care is necessary to try to promote
equal opportunity and circumvent structural constraints. You get experts to study
this, have political debates, do studies, and then assess the results of the policy
and amend it as need be.
> The third is with the idea that people in general and the poor in
> particular are better off if the government provides schooling, health
> care, etc., financed through progressive taxation. We aren't choosing
> among outcomes but among systems of institutions--which then generate
> the outcomes they generate, not necessarily the ones we want.
True, if the outcome would be what I seek, then the policy would be inappropriate.
> Under your system, one way of getting control of resources is political
> power; under mine, you get control of resources by offering someone else
> a deal he is willing to accept. In my view, your system results in
> people in general being poorer, and does not consistently help the poor
> relative to the rich--the latter being generally better at manipulating
> the levers of political power.
Again, I think you misunderstand "my" view. I see no reason why promoting
education, health care, and basics to the poor and assuring a level of equal
opportunity would make people worse off relative to the rich. Perhaps the rich are
better at manipulating politics in a democracy, but at least a democracy gives the
people the chance to hold those who have power accountable. Without government
money and the ability to use force would equal power, and those with it could do
what they want, unaccountable to no one unless someone is powerful enough to stop
them. You could imagine emerging Mafia families, fighting, competing, controlling
trade, making deals, cutting out those who "don't matter" (the poor).
> Consider schooling. The vast majority of people who go to public schools
> aren't poor. The ultimate reason they are in public schools is that the
> people who make their living out of those schools want to continue doing
> so. You can see that pretty clearly every time someone runs a voucher
> initiative, and the teachers' unions outspend the supporters of the
> initiative by a factor of many. You can see the same factors at work if
> you look at the actual history of the rise of public schooling in
> England, as described by West. And if you look at the performance of the
> public schools, you observe that they do a tolerable job (although I
> think a worse job at a higher cost than a private system would) for
> middle income people, and a very bad job for the poor. Lott also has
> some statistical evidence (on international data--I can dig up the
> article cite if you want) suggesting that another reason for the
> prevalance of public schooling is that it makes it easier for
> governments to control their populations--by controlling what they are
> taught.
I really don't buy that. Common sense suggests that private schools would simply
add to the inequalities in education by decreasing the amount of money in public
schools which would lead to a a ghettoization of those who couldn't afford private
schools. No voucher initiative I've seen was large enough to do more than help the
middle and upper middle class. Furthermore, though I'm in higher ed I am a member
of the NEA, and when I look at their literature and monthly magazines, the focus is
on teaching better, smarter, and fairly. This isn't an attempt to control, if
anything, the idea of trying to promote critical thought is treated as more
important than ever before.
> Ditto for the continued existence of the private express statutes, which
> are the only reason the Post Office hasn't been driven out of the market
> long ago. It isn't the customers that keep them, it's the postal
> workers. Ditto for the farm program--paid for mostly by an implicit
> regressive tax (higher food prices) and subsidizing mostly well off
> people.
>
> If you look at the rhetoric of the mixed economy, it's largely about
> helping the poor. If you look at the reality, the poor are largely an
> excuse for special interest legislation--which quite often hurts the
> poor.
Oh, that happens alot, I agree. But I don't think ditching government is a
feasible answer. Remember, my complaint with the Left is too much of a willingness
to accept a too powerful government, one not easily held accountable. My reform
would be more governmental openness (not keeping secrets from the public), and
decentralization to the lowest level needed to deal with various problems. Maybe
in time that could disintegrate into no government; more likely, government itself
would become more open and consensual. But the problems I accuse you of ignoring
also hurt my plan -- how do you decentralize a complex system already linked both
nationally and in a global economy?
> Note that your fundamental argument was what was used to justify the war
> on poverty. We now know the result.
Since the New Deal started (a better beginning point for the war on poverty,
Johnson's policies were rhetorical to simply continue it) a lot of improvement has
been made in people's lifestyles; definitely much less absolute poverty (since you
like absolutes). There was relative improvement too. But the problem didn't go
away, and after initial benefits a lot of other programs were less effective.
> Prior to the beginning of the war on
> poverty, poverty had been steadily declining for at least two decades.
> The war on poverty reversed that trend.
I've never heard this claim before. But even if you're right in the first
sentence, the second sentence makes a causal claim that is speculative. Don't
confuse correlation with causation.
> Its stated purpose wasn't to
> feed poor people but to get them out of poverty and dependency--and its
> observed consequence, or at least what happened shortly after it got
> going, was to increase the number of people in dependency.
I'm a bit skeptical of this claim.
> Structural advantage is when someone has more power in the system (thus more
> > options) than others due to his or her position in the system. Some are
> > advantaged, others are disadvantaged.
>
> The whole metaphor of "power" implies, without any argument, that we are
> talking about a zero sum game.
No it doesn't. For power to exist and power diffentials to exist you don't need a
zero sum game. You just need relative power differentials.
> If it means my power over you, then it is
> a zero sum game. But if means my ability to do things, it isn't--that
> might increase with no decrease in your ability to do things. Hence
> advantaging me (again a word that implies an argument it doesn't make)
> need not disadvantage you.
I think it was Foucault who noted that all social relations are permeated with
power relations. Power relations are a part of social structure in that they (as
noted) both constrain and empower. To the extent that people are empowered without
gaining structural advantage over the ability of others to act and empower
themselves, there is no problem as far as I'm concerned. It's only if the relative
power differential between the two create structural advantages down the line that
constrain one vis-a-vis the other that you have a potential problem. Even then, I
think such differentials are inevitable in any complex system, it would be silly to
try to eliminate them, especially the short term ones that result from normal life
choices. I have more power than a class mate because of my choices and actions.
The only time I think these power differentials create a real problem is if the
start to show themselves across generations, creating social classes that are
structurally positioned so as not to allow one to point to bad decisions or good
choices as the cause for the power differential. When status and place in society
*unrelated to ones' own actions and choices* is a major factor empowering or
constraining. Only in those casese do I think it is legitimate for collective,
democratic action to be undertaken to try to assure that those constrained have
equal opportunity.
> > (you complain I don't define what constrain and limit mean)
> >
> > I believe I did, pretty clearly: a constraint is when social structures
> > (social
> > structures are relationships, such relationships virtually always has an
> > element of
> > power, be it simple relationships like slave/master, husband/wife,
> > teacher/student,
> > or more complex relationships involving social classes. Some relationships
> > are
> > voluntary or enforced by custom and tradition -- shared norms -- others use
> > threat
> > of physical force or economic clout to back them up), evidenced by ones'
> > place in
> > society, limit one's ability to undertake acts he or she would otherwise want
> > to.
>
> Would otherwise "want to" or "be able to?" You still want to take the
> act even if you are limited in your ability to do it.
There could also be ways where structure constrains wants. A ghetto child may not
want to go to school or succeed because the structure of the system puts him in a
social system where status is defined by drug selling or gang membership, literally
ghettoizing his subculture in the larger scheme of things. That's a barrier that
some manage to break through, but it's not easy.
> > As noted in the post yesterday, such constraints are not *per se*
> > illegitimate,
> > everyone is constrained simply by the fact others exist and choose to do
> > things.
> > If you pick an apple, you constrain the ability of someone else to pick that
> > same
> > apple, even if they can pick others.
>
> This an example where my action reduces your options. Yet you seem to be
> applying exactly the same judgement where my action increases my options
> without reducing yours.
All of your actions potentially constrains another. Your actions can also help
others in some way (you can pick an apple and give it to a friend, you can plant an
apple tree). Planting an apple tree might constrain someone from using that same
piece of land or those seeds, but they might gang apples from it down the line.
It's not only not a zero-sum game, but its complex in its temporal possibilities
and the sometimes paradoxical results of choices (acts that constrain others can
also help others, either directly or down the line).
cheers, scott
Eagle Eye
Ron Allen <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Eagle Eye wrote:
>> When people are murdered, put in GULAGs, put in "mental hospitals,"
>> etc. and not permitted to exercise their free will, socialism can
>> exist.
>Ron Allen wrote:
>> Are you saying these describe how you understand the kind of
>> socialism I advocate?
>Eagle Eye wrote:
>> These describe actual methods which have been used to enforce
>> socialism (whether or not that system lived up to some theoretical
>> ideal).
>Ron Allen answers:
>That is exactly the problem. The methods of fraud, force
>and fear were used to enforce a model of socialism that
>never did live up to the theoretical ideals and political
>principles of authentic socialism -- humanistic ideas,
>libertarian ideas, and democratic ideas.
Show me "authentic socialism." Don't make promises. Show
me.
[snip]
>Eagle Eye wrote:
>> Now, tell me how you want to create a system in which such things
>> cannot happen.
>Ron Allen answers:
>I want the system to be desired by the people, demanded
>by the people, and designed and developed by the people.
Find those people who want it and leave the rest of us alone.
>I am only giving my voice/vote in favor of a social
>democratic commonwealth when I argue for and advocate
>democratic socialism. Such things as you describe will
>not happen -- our ought not happen -- if the socialism
>that is constructed from the very first is a democratic
>and libertarian model of socialism. I see no reason for
>an educated and enlightened majority to employ force,
>fraud or fear in order to mold, manage and maintain a
>democratic version of socialism.
You see no reason? How about the fact that, in your example,
it is a majority and not unanimous consent?
=====
EE
Rick Pasotto
wrote:
[snip]
> Material wealth is not what matters. Politically and socially what
> matters is status, and the opportunity to achieve what anyone else in
> that society can achieve without having to overcome major obstacles
> put in place by nature of your position in society.
[sniping]
The above statements are flatly contradicted by the following:
> Of course I'd rather be in the 80th percentile of a rich society.
--
"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in
principle is always a vice."
-- Thomas Paine, _The Rights of Man_ (1791)
Rick Pasotto email: ri...@telocity.com