Politics and Ethics--Socialism, Libertarianism, and Capitalism
R.STUBBLEFIELD
Politics and Ethics
Political labels seem to be treated rather loosely on the net. There
are people who believe that socialism promotes freedom; and there
are others who think that libertarianism does. I think that such beliefs
can only be held by treating those concepts as floating abstractions--i.e.,
by not carefully identifying the facts that give rise to the terms.
Politics is a normative science. It deals with how society should be organized
to achieve certain ends. The "how" is the means and might be anarchy,
democracy, monarchy, a constitutional republic, or some other form.
The means are important; but more important yet are the ends. Throughout
history there have been only two variants--the end is the good of the collective
or the end is the good of the individual. Even the social systems of
absolute rulers were seen as preserving the tribe, the race, the nation,
or the empire. To date only one nation has explicitly been designed to
promote the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of the individual. A
political system is embodied in a code of laws that define how man should
act when living in a social context. Principles which guide man's actions
are moral principles. Thus, a political system rests on a basis
of a moral system--a code of ethics.
Capitalism is a political system where the social environment supports
individual ownership of the instruments of production. More broadly,
capitalism is the system that protects the rights of individuals. The
ethical base of capitalism is (in a loaded term) selfishness. The unit of
value in a capitalist society is the individual. A capitalist government
uses its monopoly on legal coercion to prohibit the initiation of force.
It uses force only in retaliation against criminals, allowing its citizens
to pursue their own rational self-interest free from the arbitrary use of
force by others in society. Thus a capitalist society is a free society.
Equivocations by some notwithstanding, the unit of value of socialism is
a group--just as it is for all other forms of collectivism. The ethical
base of socialism is the opposite of selfishness--i.e., self-sacrifice.
There is a point in any collective political system where the individual
is sacrificed for some collective good. This can be seen when the state
initiates force against individuals to achieve some "public good." At
some point (in fact at more and more points as time goes on) whoever decides
for the state says to the individual, "In this matter you are not free to
decide for yourself. Do as I command." Collectivist states are slave states.
The world is full of collectivist states--especially totalitarian socialist
ones; but there are no capitalist nations today. The United States has come
closest but is now that unstable system known as a welfare state--part slave,
part free--drifting in the direction of more sacrifice and less freedom.
Some of you on the net would like to reverse our drift into slavery and have
chosen to fight under the libertarian banner. Please reconsider.
The concept of libertarianism allows people to pretend they are in favor of
a particular political system (one that promotes liberty) without committing
to any particular ethics. The libertarian umbrella shelters conservative
"capitalists" who dare not speak in favor of selfishness, hippies who believe
in communal living, pragmatists who believe crime can be rational for
criminals, anarchists who believe that the concept of contract has meaning
in the absence of government, and anyone else who proclaims to be in favor
of liberty. This is the sense in which libertarianism takes liberty as an
axiom. And this is the reason that libertarianism is anti-philosophical.
If it is freedom you want, it is capitalism and rational egoism you have
to defend.
--
Bob Stubblefield ihnp4!hound!rwsh 201-949-2846
Richard Carnes
>
>Capitalism is a political system where the social environment supports
>individual ownership of the instruments of production. More broadly,
>capitalism is the system that protects the rights of individuals.
Why do individuals have the right to own the means of production? I
am looking for a coherent philosophical argument here, one that
doesn't beg -- oh, forget it.
>The
>ethical base of capitalism is (in a loaded term) selfishness. The unit of
>value in a capitalist society is the individual. A capitalist government
>uses its monopoly on legal coercion to prohibit the initiation of force.
>It uses force only in retaliation against criminals, allowing its citizens
>to pursue their own rational self-interest free from the arbitrary use of
>force by others in society. Thus a capitalist society is a free society.
I have written at some length on why a capitalist society is not a
"free society": the existence of private property entails rather
severe constraints on freedom. Bob has refuted my point in the most
effective way: by ignoring it.
I have also asked why it is not an "initiation of force" to use
coercion to prevent someone from trespassing, stealing, or picking
pockets. None of these criminal activities need involve coercion.
This point has also been completely ignored.
>Equivocations by some notwithstanding, the unit of value of socialism is
>a group--just as it is for all other forms of collectivism. The ethical
>base of socialism is the opposite of selfishness--i.e., self-sacrifice.
>There is a point in any collective political system where the individual
>is sacrificed for some collective good....
In this paragraph Bob piles assertion on assertion without any
attempt to support his statements or analyze their meaning. Why is
"the unit of value of socialism a group," and what does that mean?
What authoritative writings of socialists declare that individuals
are to be sacrificed "to the common good," and why are these writings
to be preferred to the many others that insist otherwise? Never
mind; we're not supposed to ask. In fact, it was the basis of Marx's
objections (and mine) to capitalism that it sacrifices individuals to
the common good.
>If it is freedom you want...
How about explaining what *you* mean by "freedom," instead of using
it as a mere football cheer or a stick with which to beat your
opponents? Carefully analyzing the meanings of concepts is one
difference between philosophy and merely braying one's opinions.
I enjoy discussions with people who have different views. That is
how one learns. But such discussions cannot get anywhere if one side
makes no attempt to understand what the other side is saying and meet
their arguments in a way that could be persuasive. Bob has provided
a compendium of Randian slogans without attempting to engage in
anything that I can recognize as philosophical debate.
Over in net.philosophy, one may read some fairly sophisticated
discussions of topics in the philosophy of mind and epistemology.
Why is it that people suffer massive neural dysfunction as soon as
the subject of politics comes up? I have participated in the
discussions in this newsgroup in the hope of enlightenment, but I am
frustrated by the grade-school level of many of the articles. I will
be happy to continue discussions by e-mail. So long for a while.
--
Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
Michael Sykora
>Why do individuals have the right to own the means of production?
Perhaps, those individuals who create the means of production should have
the (transferrable) right to own them, at least those means that are created
from non-scarce resources.
Michael Sykora
l...@teddy.uucp
OK, who created the means of production in this country?
Well, first lets examine what the means of production are.
Certainly raw materials (minerals, wood) are neccessary for
production. Who created them?
We can't produce things without food, which is grown in the land. Who
created the land?
We produce things in factories. Who created them? The owners? All
by themselves?
--
Sport Death, (USENET) ...{decvax | ihnp4!mit-eddie}!genrad!panda!lkk
Larry Kolodney (INTERNET) l...@mit-mc.arpa
--------
Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.
- Helen Keller
Frank Adams
>political system is embodied in a code of laws that define how man should
>act when living in a social context. Principles which guide man's actions
>are moral principles. Thus, a political system rests on a basis
>of a moral system--a code of ethics.
This is a half-truth. One can regard the code of laws in any polity at
any given time as a moral system, but this ignores the way those laws
came into being, and their changing nature. The laws of any nation are
more accurately seen as a mix and compromise of various moral systems.
Another important point is that no system of laws is a complete moral code.
There are customs and other informal arrangements which form an essential
part of the functioning of the system. These are not only varying, but
not are not even clearly defined.
>Capitalism is a political system where the social environment supports
>individual ownership of the instruments of production. More broadly,
>capitalism is the system that protects the rights of individuals.
If you think the right to own the instruments of production is the most
important human right, this makes sense. Socialists regard the right to
food and shelter as more important. On this point, I must agree with them.
I support capitalism because it is, in fact, better at doing this.
>The unit of
>value in a capitalist society is the individual.
>Equivocations by some notwithstanding, the unit of value of socialism is
>a group--just as it is for all other forms of collectivism. The ethical
>base of socialism is the opposite of selfishness--i.e., self-sacrifice.
>There is a point in any collective political system where the individual
>is sacrificed for some collective good. This can be seen when the state
>initiates force against individuals to achieve some "public good."
You talk about the individual good and the public good as though they were
different things. The public good is just the aggregate measure of the
individual good.
Any state acts to restrict the freedoms of its citizens for the public good.
A frequent way of doing this is to recognize certain individual rights, and
prevent interference with the rights of one individual by another. A
libertarian system (which really is what you are advocating) recognizes
property rights as the sole form of rights recognized by the state. This
choice of rights to be recognized needs explicit justification.
Non-initiation of force or fraud does not supply this justification.
If a person drops something, and someone else, in plain sight, picks it up
and keeps it, there is force or fraud, narrowly defined, involved. One
may call it force since the first person has a right to the object; but
this pre-supposes property rights, and thus cannot be used to justify them.
>The world is full of collectivist states--especially totalitarian socialist
>ones; but there are no capitalist nations today. The United States has come
>closest but is now that unstable system known as a welfare state--part slave,
>part free--drifting in the direction of more sacrifice and less freedom.
See above. There are no pure forms of any kind of system. The U.S. is
much more free than the Soviet Union, and also much more capitalistic.
Chile is about as capitalistic as the U.S., but much less free. France is
nearly as free as the U.S., but noticeably less capitalistic.
There is a positive correlation between capitalism and freedom in existing
states. I do not think that correlation is a coincidence. But just because
more capitalist is better, does not mean completely capitalist is best.
I see no evidence that the U.S. is drifting in the direction of less
freedom. I think we have significantly more freedom than formerly --
thanks in large part to the civil rights movement.
Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer
>Over in net.philosophy, one may read some fairly sophisticated
>discussions of topics in the philosophy of mind and epistemology.
>Why is it that people suffer massive neural dysfunction as soon as
>the subject of politics comes up? I have participated in the
>discussions in this newsgroup in the hope of enlightenment, but I am
>frustrated by the grade-school level of many of the articles. I will
>be happy to continue discussions by e-mail. So long for a while.
>--
>Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
Carnes posting are all - until the last few weeks - among the best in
net.politics.theory. I was curious about the reason for the degredation. It
appears to be that he's gotten disgusted with what goes on here, something I
can feel sympathy for.
I, for one, shall miss his postings if he really quits.
<mike
Piotr Berman
>
> Sykora: Perhaps, those individuals who create the means of production
> should have the (transferrable) right to own them, at least those means
> that are created from non-scarce resources.
Berman: Who creates the means of production? People who provide labor,
people who provide expertise of people who provide capital? How you
split the contribution? (I skip the remark about non-scarce resources
here). I claim that the situation is sufficiently messy that it is
impossible the formulate an always aplicable first-principle.
Michael Sykora
>Certainly raw materials (minerals, wood) are neccessary for
>production. Who created them?
I wouldn't include these in my definition of "means" of production.
In any case, however, it is important to distinguish between raw materials
in a state of nature versus raw materials that have been removed from
nature (e.g., minerals embedded in the earth vs. minerals that have been
mined).
>We can't produce things without food, which is grown in the land. Who
>created the land?
Since no one created the land, the question of whop should own it obviously
cannot be answered by recourse to the question, "who created it?", but perhaps
we should consider who enhanced it?
We produce things in factories. Who created them? The owners? All
by themselves?
If people create things by themselves, they should have the right to do with
them as they wish, including transferring ownership rights. The owners
purchased the factory or purchased the services of those who created the
factory, and are therefore entitled to do with it as they wish.
>Larry Kolodney (INTERNET) l...@mit-mc.arpa
Michael Sykora
Michael Sykora
>You talk about the individual good and the public good as though they were
>different things. The public good is just the aggregate measure of the
>individual good.
Can you provide an algorithm for determining this aggregate from the individual
goods? Note, the algorithm should include a means of determining what the
individual goods are.
>A
>libertarian system (which really is what you are advocating) recognizes
>property rights as the sole form of rights recognized by the state. This
>choice of rights to be recognized needs explicit justification.
Actually, it would include the rights to life and liberty also.
>Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Michael Sykora
Michael Sykora
>Berman: Who creates the means of production? People who provide labor,
>people who provide expertise of people who provide capital? How you
>split the contribution? (I skip the remark about non-scarce resources
>here). I claim that the situation is sufficiently messy that it is
>impossible the formulate an always aplicable first-principle.
The people who provide the labor do so for a fee. They transfer their
rights to the product of this labor to the payer of the fee.
The people who provide the expertise do so for a fee. They transfer their
rights to the product of this expertise to the payer of the fee.
The people who provide the capital do so for a return and/or a partial
ownership in the finished product.
The providers of these services are free to provide them at the agreed upon
price/return or not.
The contributions are split according to the agreed upon price of services/
capital.
This may be messy, but it's alot less messy than government administered
systems.
Michael Sykora
Frank Adams
>>You talk about the individual good and the public good as though they were
>>different things. The public good is just the aggregate measure of the
>>individual good.
>
>Can you provide an algorithm for determining this aggregate from the
>individual goods? Note, the algorithm should include a means of determining
>what the individual goods are.
In practice, determining what the public good is is often quite difficult.
One must use such tools as judgement, compassion, and imagination. Opinion
polls (including the formal ones called elections) are not worthless either.
The result is still imperfect.
>>A
>>libertarian system (which really is what you are advocating) recognizes
>>property rights as the sole form of rights recognized by the state. This
>>choice of rights to be recognized needs explicit justification.
>
>Actually, it would include the rights to life and liberty also.
You're right. I want to emphasize that the "liberty" here is a narrowly
defined thing, unlike the more common modern use of the word. It means the
right to move freely in one's own and public property, and in others'
property subject only to the restraint of the owner.
I still haven't seen any justification for this choice.
Piotr Berman
It is not only messy, but totally defies the phrase "people who created
the means of production", which is emotionally charged and nice.
As we see, taxing profits is not taking away the fruits of hard labor,
but collecting a part of the return on the capital.
Some people also point that people who provide labor are not always
"free to provide them at the agreed upon price/return or not".
While capital may move freely, a laborer is greatly constrained.
Unlike the capital owner, he must have a deal to survive.
While the owner of capital may patiently shop around, the laborer
risks personal deprivations when he wants to shop around (move to
other area, abandon a job to seek for another etc.).
While I am not against the privite enterprise, I am not satisfied
with the glib phrase
> they transfer the rights to the product of
> this labor to the payer of the fee.
Is human work worth only as much as it is paid?
Is the value of a human equal to the sum of wages he/she collected?
If labor is just a commodity, is liberty a commodity as well?
Michael Sykora
>In practice, determining what the public good is is often quite difficult.
>One must use such tools as judgement, compassion, and imagination. Opinion
>polls (including the formal ones called elections) are not worthless either.
>The result is still imperfect.
"Judgement" based on what criteria?
Is "compassion" a tool? Why should we assume compassion is good?
Imagination may be useful in coming up with innovative solutions, but
how is it useful in determining what the public wants? (Note, I am assuming,
based on your reference to opinion polls, that you see the public's desires
as highly relevant to what the "public good" is.)
The market has the advantage over opinion polls in that it can measure
more accurately than opinion polls can the EXTENT of people's wants, as it
forces people to put their money where their mouths are.
Originally, you said that the public good is just the aggregate of individual
goods. How are the individual goods combined if they conflict?
Michael Sykora
Michael Sykora
>It is not only messy, but totally defies the phrase "people who created
>the means of production", which is emotionally charged and nice.
You asked how the contributions are split. I indicated how. What's the
problem?
>As we see, taxing profits is not taking away the fruits of hard labor,
>but collecting a part of the return on the capital.
Where did you demonstrate this?
>Some people also point that people who provide labor are not always
>"free to provide them at the agreed upon price/return or not".
In what situations are they not? Remember, we are talking about a theoretical
system here, not one that is currently implemented.
>While capital may move freely, a laborer is greatly constrained.
While birds can fly unaided, humans cannot. So???
>Unlike the capital owner, he must have a deal to survive.
What do you mean by a deal?
>While the owner of capital may patiently shop around, the laborer
>risks personal deprivations when he wants to shop around (move to
>other area, abandon a job to seek for another etc.).
Please note that if you omit the "While" clause, the statement is still
true.
>While I am not against the privite enterprise, I am not satisfied
>with the glib phrase
>> they transfer the rights to the product of
>> this labor to the payer of the fee.
What is wrong with it? Wherein lies your dissatisfaction?
>Is human work worth only as much as it is paid?
How do you define "worth?"
>Is the value of a human equal to the sum of wages he/she collected?
"Value" to whom? There is no such thing as objective value.
>If labor is just a commodity, is liberty a commodity as well?
Can "liberty" be bought and sold? I'm not sure. First, liberty needs
to be defined precisely.
Michael Sykora
Baba ROM DOS
> more accurately than opinion polls can the EXTENT of people's wants, as it
> forces people to put their money where their mouths are.
>
And, of course, it gives the people with the most money the biggest mouths.
Baba
Frank Adams
In article <434...@csd2.UUCP> syk...@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) writes:
>
>>In practice, determining what the public good is is often quite difficult.
>>One must use such tools as judgement, compassion, and imagination. Opinion
>>polls (including the formal ones called elections) are not worthless either.
>>The result is still imperfect.
>
>"Judgement" based on what criteria?
>Is "compassion" a tool? Why should we assume compassion is good?
>Imagination may be useful in coming up with innovative solutions, but
>how is it useful in determining what the public wants? (Note, I am assuming,
>based on your reference to opinion polls, that you see the public's desires
>as highly relevant to what the "public good" is.)
>
>The market has the advantage over opinion polls in that it can measure
>more accurately than opinion polls can the EXTENT of people's wants, as it
>forces people to put their money where their mouths are.
The market is limited to supplying goods where it is relatively easy to
assess who benefits from the transaction, and where the greatest part of
those benefits can be restricted to those who are willing to pay. There
are goods where this is not the case. These are called "public goods"
(confusing terminology, in this context). They are generally regarded as
including schools, roads, parks, defense, and police protection, among
other things.
Judgement, imagination and compassion are used for precisely the purpose
you mention: attempting to estimate the extent of people's wants.
I will also note that there is a theoretical problem with the market as
a measure of the extent of people's wants; it weights people by how wealthy
they are. Now this is possibly equitable for those who have made their
money themselves; but it is not equitable for those who inherited great
wealth.
(This may sound like sour grapes to some of you. It isn't. I'm doing
quite well, thank you.)
I favor a mixed economy, more capitalist than otherwise, such as we have
now in the U.S., because it works best at serving the public good.
Pragmatically, it has done better than any other system tried; and
theoretically, there is good reason to expect just that result.
>Originally, you said that the public good is just the aggregate of individual
>goods. How are the individual goods combined if they conflict?
One weights them by how important they are to the individuals involved.
Piotr Berman
>
> >It is not only messy, but totally defies the phrase "people who created
> >the means of production", which is emotionally charged and nice.
>
> You asked how the contributions are split. I indicated how. What's the
> problem?
>
work, so he acquires the rights to fruits of labor. The actual work
of the owner may be no larger than the work of any other person involved.
> >As we see, taxing profits is not taking away the fruits of hard labor,
> >but collecting a part of the return on the capital.
>
> Where did you demonstrate this?
>
See above - the profits in the last case are not due to expenditure
of labor, but due to expenditure of money. Money in turn do not need
to reflect any past work of the owner.
You do not seem to share the latter opinion: the notion of the work
efficiency which may differ more than, say, 1000 times from individual
to individual may be natural, to me it is not.
> >Some people also point that people who provide labor are not always
> >"free to provide them at the agreed upon price/return or not".
>
> In what situations are they not? Remember, we are talking about a theoretical
> system here, not one that is currently implemented.
>
Wait...
> >While capital may move freely, a laborer is greatly constrained.
>
> While birds can fly unaided, humans cannot. So???
However, the capital flies easily. What I said is that the person
with large amount of money has much larger flexibility than the
one with small (why otherwise would he bother to have those money
to begin with?).
What I am saying here is the following: the equality under the law
of two sides of a transaction does not provide equal opportunities
to bargain. Since this assymmetry is persistent, one cannot ignore
it as a statistical aberration.
>
> >Unlike the capital owner, he must have a deal to survive.
>
> What do you mean by a deal?
>
Sell labor, instead of keeping to shop around for a better deal.
> >While the owner of capital may patiently shop around, the laborer
> >risks personal deprivations when he wants to shop around (move to
> >other area, abandon a job to seek for another etc.).
> >While I am not against the privite enterprise, I am not satisfied
> >with the glib phrase
> >> they transfer the rights to the product of
> >> this labor to the payer of the fee.
>
> What is wrong with it? Wherein lies your dissatisfaction?
>
According to your approach, the owner of capital does not need anything
from the rest of the society than the services for which he pays, more-
over, whatever profits does he have, they are due to his work alone.
In my approach, the profits of the owner of capital are at least
partially due to advantage of his position, and not exlusively due to
his skills, enterprenourship etc. Thus it may be fair that he shares
his profits with the rest of the society. In particular, your 'glib
phrase' is used to oppose taxation. I claim that it contains so much
of systematic idealization of reality that it cannot be used to justify
any ethical conclusions.
> >Is human work worth only as much as it is paid?
>
> How do you define "worth?"
I was asking a question!
>
> >Is the value of a human equal to the sum of wages he/she collected?
>
> "Value" to whom? There is no such thing as objective value.
Then OK, we both agree: we are free to redefine the value of work
is such a way that the difference between compensation/profit
and the "actual" worth will be equal to a tax, this way taxing
does not take away any contribution from an individual.
In short, taxing is not an ethically wrong thing ('theft'),
but admissible semantic manipulation.
Piotr Berman
Michael Sykora
>Your split is the following: the owner pays cash the people for their
>work, so he acquires the rights to fruits of labor. The actual work
>of the owner may be no larger than the work of any other person involved.
The actual "work" of the owner involves administration and management. Often,
this can be the most difficult task. That is why good managers are paid
well. In a competitive system, investors must work hard to earn what
economists call profit (as distinguished from what accountants call profit).
The owner (and possibly his banker) bear all the risk.
If they don't get a return appropriate to the amount of risk taken they
won't bother with the investment.
>See above - the profits in the last case are not due to expenditure
>of labor, but due to expenditure of money. Money in turn do not need
>to reflect any past work of the owner.
How else? Inheritance? -- Then the one who passed on the money had a right
to do with it as he/she pleased, including his/her "undeserving" offspring.
>You do not seem to share the latter opinion: the notion of the work
>efficiency which may differ more than, say, 1000 times from individual
>to individual may be natural, to me it is not.
Please eleborate. I do not understand this.
>What I am saying here is the following: the equality under the law
>of two sides of a transaction does not provide equal opportunities
>to bargain.
The phrase "to bargain" needs elaboration if one is to comment on your
assertion.
>> >Unlike the capital owner, he must have a deal to survive.
>> What do you mean by a deal?
>Sell labor, instead of keeping to shop around for a better deal.
It is quite often possible to do both.
Would you prefer it if the capital owner also had a tougher time?
>> >While the owner of capital may patiently shop around, the laborer
>> >risks personal deprivations when he wants to shop around (move to
>> >other area, abandon a job to seek for another etc.).
Note that while the owner of capital is shopping around he is missing out on
potential profits.
> In my approach, the profits of the owner of capital are at least
>partially due to advantage of his position, and not exlusively due to
>his skills, enterprenourship etc.
By "position," I take it you mean those who have inherited wealth.
But the right to inherited wealth is foremost a right of the giver.
>Thus it may be fair that he shares
>his profits with the rest of the society. In particular, your 'glib
>phrase' is used to oppose taxation.
Which parts of society helped in the creation of this wealth. It's only
right that those who participated in the creation of the wealth get a
share, not every member of society. How do you determine how much should
be taxed away?
> I claim that it contains so much
>of systematic idealization of reality that it cannot be used to justify
>any ethical conclusions.
????
>> >Is human work worth only as much as it is paid?
>> How do you define "worth?"
>I was asking a question!
And I was asking you to clarify your question because I did not fully
understand it.
> >Is the value of a human equal to the sum of wages he/she collected?
> "Value" to whom? There is no such thing as objective value.
>Then OK, we both agree: we are free to redefine the value of work
>is such a way that the difference between compensation/profit
>and the "actual" worth will be equal to a tax, this way taxing
>does not take away any contribution from an individual.
Hold on there. I don't agree to that. I merely said that value is subjective.
If value is subjective, then what does "actual worth" mean?
>Piotr Berman
Michael Sykora
>Your split is the following: the owner pays cash the people for their
>work, so he acquires the rights to fruits of labor. The actual work
>of the owner may be no larger than the work of any other person involved.
The actual "work" of the owner involves administration and management. Often,
this can be the most difficult task. That is why good managers are paid
well. In a competitive system, investors must work hard to earn what
economists call profit (as distinguished from what accountants call profit).
The owner (and possibly his banker) bear all the risk.
If they don't get a return appropriate to the amount of risk taken they
won't bother with the investment.
>See above - the profits in the last case are not due to expenditure
>of labor, but due to expenditure of money. Money in turn do not need
>to reflect any past work of the owner.
How else? Inheritance? -- Then the one who passed on the money had a right
to do with it as he/she pleased, including giving it to his/her "undeserving"
n...@inmet.uucp
>/* Written 12:53 am Dec 25, 1985 by baba@spar in inmet:net.politics.t */
>> The market has the advantage over opinion polls in that it can measure
>> more accurately than opinion polls can the EXTENT of people's wants, as it
>> forces people to put their money where their mouths are.
>>
>
>And, of course, it gives the people with the most money the biggest mouths.
>
> Baba
And, of course, forces them to pay for every "syllable" they "utter".
Michael Sykora
????
>Piotr Berman
Mike Sykora
SEVENER
> >/* Written 12:53 am Dec 25, 1985 by baba@spar in inmet:net.politics.t */
> >> The market has the advantage over opinion polls in that it can measure
> >> more accurately than opinion polls can the EXTENT of people's wants, as it
> >> forces people to put their money where their mouths are.
> >>
> >> Michael Sykora
ability to provide *money* for their wants, which in turn depends
upon the distribution of income and, more importantly, wealth.
The people starving in Africa and in other Third World countries
throughout the world have one most fundamental want and *need* :
food. Yet because they have no money they count for nothing
in the market.
There have been theoretical economic articles written which demonstrate
that the market is only a reasonable reflection of people's actual
wants *given a relatively equal distribution of income*.
If a few people control most of the income and the wealth and most
people control nothing then only the wants of the wealthy will be
measured by the market.
This is one of the worst flaws of laissez faire economics.
To put it in Michael's graphic terms - "it only forces people to
put their money where their mouths are *if they have money*".
And anyway what the starving throughout the world really want is
FOOD in their mouths, not money.
tim sevener whuxn!orb
Piotr Berman
>
> >> How do you define "worth?"
>
> >I was asking a question!
>
> And I was asking you to clarify your question because I did not fully
> understand it.
>
> >> >Is the value of a human equal to the sum of wages he/she collected?
>
> >> "Value" to whom? There is no such thing as objective value.
>
> >Then OK, we both agree: we are free to redefine the value of work
> >is such a way that the difference between compensation/profit
> >and the "actual" worth will be equal to a tax, this way taxing
> >does not take away any contribution from an individual.
>
> Hold on there. I don't agree to that. I merely said that value is subjective.
> If value is subjective, then what does "actual worth" mean?
>
> >Piotr Berman
>
> Mike Sykora
I am disputing the following libertarian tenet: whatever wealth an
individual acquired by its own direct labor and indirect labor
(transactions with other individual) is solely his/her: only this
individual has the right to dispose this wealth. Sounds very well,
additionally allows to draw the following conclusion: any form of
tax is a theft (as a disposition of wealth by other person than the
owner).
My objection was that when market is involved, the connection between
labor and reward is not strightforward. In an extreme example,
gambling with small stakes takes the same effort as gambling large
stakes. The absolute risk is larger in the latter case, but this is
not a meassure of effort. The personal risk may be larger in the first
case: small gambler may risk his all livelyhood, while the high-roller
risks his pocket money. Substitute managing capital for gambling and
the same conclusions follow.
Then we (both me and Sykora) are coming to the conclusion that it is
impossible to find "objective meassures" of the worth of labor.
Two persons may study with equal dilligence, but due to the shift in
the market, by the time they finish their education the market value
of their skills may differ, the fortunate one could have better
forsight, but he could also have been more lucky.
At this juncture I am making a conclusion which a libertarian refuses
to make: since the moral justification for ownership of wealth is the
labor which allowed to gather this wealth, and the value of this labor
is subjective (to a degree, not totally), the concept of ownership
is also subjective, and so are the priviledges of ownership (the full
discretion in disposing the wealth). Thus it may be fully justified
that a majority defines some limitation on this discretion (you dispose
60% as you see fit, we dispose 40%), even if it is contrary to the
wish of some.
It may be disputable whether the constaints on ownership imposed by
majority are fair, economically efficient etc., but they do not
constitute theft, but rather a convention what the ownership is.
It may be debatable what this convention should be, but because of
the inherently subjective nature of the "worth of labor" (i.e. the
proportion of monetary reward which "morally" should be left to
the free disposition by an individual), this must be a convention.
As it is pointed in the last paragraph, this convention has a moral
nature. Thus it should not be changed to freely: morality has sense
only if it is stable during lifetimes of individuals. Thus the basic
tenets of such a convention belong to constitution, as opposed to
a law which may be changed easily and frequently. For the same reason,
even small changes should not be undertaken to lightly.
As a final conclusion, theft is not a did which may be defined in
absolute (i.e. invariant) terms, but in terms of a convention.
A libertarian will point at this moment that by the same token the
liberty would be a convention. Where then can we draw a line between,
say, our founding fathers and Hitler? They claim that without ironclad
rules, which are not subjects to changable conventions, we exist on
a slippery slope. Thus the morality, law etc. should be based on
the objectively developed ethical system. (The system, since only
one may be developed objectively.)
However, as an atheist, I claim that ethics based on a religion, however
usefull, is based on an illusion. Similarly, my logical education
suggest that "rational ethics" is similarly based on an illusion of
objectivity. Thus we should use our reason not to find ironclad rules
(futile), but to find some forsight. Would I forsee that the current
system is bound to evolve into totalitarianism, I would vote libertarian.
Would I forsee that almost everybody would be better of without a
minimal wage, I would advocate its repeal. However, my prediction
is different.
Piotr Berman
ren...@uiucdcs.cs.uiuc.edu
> If a few people control most of the income and the wealth and most
> people control nothing then only the wants of the wealthy will be
> measured by the market. This is one of the worst flaws of laissez
> faire economics.
If a few people control most of the income and wealth, then in practice
*any* political system will cater to the wants of these people. This
is unavoidable. A "free market" is no better and no worse than anything
else in this situation.
Scott Renner
ihnp4!uiucdcs!renner
Piotr Berman
There is still a difference between a system in which wealth means a lot
and a system in which wealth means everything.
Piotr Berman
Frank Adams
>If a few people control most of the income and wealth, then in practice
>*any* political system will cater to the wants of these people. This
>is unavoidable. A "free market" is no better and no worse than anything
>else in this situation.
Well, not quite. A revolutionary political system will generally destroy
most of the wealth, instead. (Of course, no political system remains
revolutionary for very long, except in name.)
Mike Huybensz
The market is not a political system, because income and wealth are only
components of power. Political systems need not cater to the wealthy: they
need to cater to the sources of their power. That's the whole idea behind
democracies (or democratic republics): the recognition that there is
real power in mere numbers. Because poor men can kill rich men: it
may not be an even ratio, but the worse it gets, the better the chances
of the poor.
--
Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
Tony Wuersch
>components of power. Political systems need not cater to the wealthy: they
>need to cater to the sources of their power. That's the whole idea behind
>democracies (or democratic republics): the recognition that there is
>real power in mere numbers. Because poor men can kill rich men: it
>may not be an even ratio, but the worse it gets, the better the chances
>of the poor.
>--
>Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
Too cynical, Mike. If the power of numbers were all that were needed for
democracy, China would have been a democracy for thousands of years. And
there hasn't been enough historical time to tell if democracy is the
most stable or successful answer to a "recognition" that there is
"real power" (whatever that is) in mere numbers.
I thought democracy was an evolution of the ideas of the Enlightenment to
industrial society. The Enlightenment broke the way open to make democracy
a new legitimate way of running states. Until WWII, it was one of a number
of different ways of governing which were followed by industrialized
states. Then WWII militarily defeated and broke up the fascist and
imperialist-colonial modes of governance, leaving democracy as perhaps
the only remaining modes of legitimate governance left to capitalist
states.
The power of the ideas behind democracy is that they set up a standard
which states claiming to be democratic have to fulfill or lose the label.
Most of that standard evolved from the US Constitution, British
parliamentary history, and the Code Napoleon of France.
Today, democracy thrives because the democratic countries control the
world pursestrings, so nations wanting international legitimacy try
hard to conform to a world system run by democratic states expecting
to see their democratic models emulated worldwide. I don't think it's
right any more to say that states become democratic because they are
"adapting to internal developments". No, they're adapting to internal
developments in a way that will be ratified by the Western industrialized
countries as fair and appropriate.
Tony Wuersch
{amdcad!cae780, amd}!ubvax!tonyw
Mike Huybensz
> >The market is not a political system, because income and wealth are only
> >components of power. Political systems need not cater to the wealthy: they
> >need to cater to the sources of their power. That's the whole idea behind
> >democracies (or democratic republics): the recognition that there is
> >real power in mere numbers. Because poor men can kill rich men: it
> >may not be an even ratio, but the worse it gets, the better the chances
> >of the poor.
>
> democracy, China would have been a democracy for thousands of years. And
> there hasn't been enough historical time to tell if democracy is the
> most stable or successful answer to a "recognition" that there is
> "real power" (whatever that is) in mere numbers.
You misunderstand. There is power in mere numbers: however it is diffuse,
inefficient, and weak compared to more direct and brutal forms of power.
In order to observe weak forces, one must control for stronger forces.
In colonial America, the abundance of essentially free resources and sparse
population diverted attention from power over people to exploitation of the
resources. Oppressive government just didn't pay well when the governed
could just up and move far enough away that it was inefficient to govern
them. This hasn't been the case in China during recorded history, so
it's not surprising that democracy didn't arise there.
The wisdom of our system lies in the amplification of democratic force
through a traditional bureaucratic system. This allows us peak power
while retaining responsiveness and subtlety of control.
--
Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
Tony Wuersch
>In order to observe weak forces, one must control for stronger forces.
Now here, I think, is a real insight about democratic systems. In the
modern era, where sparse population is not such a spur to democracy,
a democratic state has to be strong in two ways: strong enough to
restrict its own power to the supervision and not the influence of
a democratic procedure, and strong enough to inhibit other forces
which would distort or undermine democratic processes.
But these are ideal guidelines which democratic states can only aspire
to, since they tend to interact with and contradict each other in real
operation. As far as the US goes, my own complaint has not been with
its democratic systems (aside from distortions of voter eligibility),
but with the extremely narrow range of topics which are considered in
an American context as matters to be decided by democratic means.
Where economic matters are concerned, the relationships between crucial
economic institutions -- the federal executive, the Federal Reserve, major
corporations -- seem to me incredibly bureaucratic and insulated by
law and convention from any popular recall or revision. The supposed
need for a separation of economic management from politics has always
seemed to me an excuse to keep voters uninformed and infantile where
US national economic issues are concerned.
Latin countries in debt have much closer relationships between government
economic policy and popular opinion than the US, even in semi-democracies
like Brazil.
>The wisdom of our system lies in the amplification of democratic force
>through a traditional bureaucratic system. This allows us peak power
>while retaining responsiveness and subtlety of control.
>--
>
>Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
I tend to see the world today as in conflict involving bureaucracies,
economies, and democracies. There are systems where the democracy is
an appendage to the bureaucracy, and some where the reverse also holds.
And there are systems where the economy comes out on top, for instance
Singapore and Hong Kong.
I'm a democrat, so I think the balance of power and the ability to
make enforceable decisions should rest in the democratic elements of
a national system. But I see the states which have this capacity as
the Western European ones, and eventually some Latin American states.
As far as effective democracy goes, the US seems to me an overbuilt
economic and bureaucratic dinosaur in contrast. A cult of national
destiny and leadership plus economic abandonment masked as laissez
faire theory isn't democratic, it's just indolent. And the direction
of a resurgent militarized US isn't democratic either.
Western European nations may be a little slower, but they know that
no democratic society would vote for economic growth by wage cuts,
which is what the "democratic" US has "voted" for as its great plan
of economic recovery ?????
Piotr Berman
> As far as effective democracy goes, the US seems to me an overbuilt
> economic and bureaucratic dinosaur in contrast. A cult of national
> destiny and leadership plus economic abandonment masked as laissez
> faire theory isn't democratic, it's just indolent. And the direction
> of a resurgent militarized US isn't democratic either.
>
> Western European nations may be a little slower, but they know that
> no democratic society would vote for economic growth by wage cuts,
> which is what the "democratic" US has "voted" for as its great plan
> of economic recovery ?????
>
> Tony Wuersch
Tony is exagerating. For example, Italians voted (i.e. government
encouraged unions to vote that way) to relax the mechanism of "scala
mobile", which in US means COLA, to increase Italian competetiveness
and so to restore economic growth. This is nothing else but growth
by wage cuts.
I admit that in the long run the idea is absurd: growth should increase
individual wealth, not decrease. But in the short run it may mean
a necessary correction. (This is at least what Italians seemed to
believe.)
Piotr Berman
Tony Wuersch
>> Western European nations may be a little slower, but they know that
>> no democratic society would vote for economic growth by wage cuts,
>> which is what the "democratic" US has "voted" for as its great plan
>> of economic recovery ?????
>>
>> Tony Wuersch
>
>Tony is exagerating. For example, Italians voted (i.e. government
>encouraged unions to vote that way) to relax the mechanism of "scala
>mobile", which in US means COLA, to increase Italian competetiveness
>and so to restore economic growth. This is nothing else but growth
>by wage cuts.
>
>I admit that in the long run the idea is absurd: growth should increase
>individual wealth, not decrease. But in the short run it may mean
>a necessary correction. (This is at least what Italians seemed to
>believe.)
>
>Piotr Berman
I didn't know about the Italian case -- thanks, Piotr. My point was
that rather than putting such matters up to a vote of some sort, the
US right wing prefers to place economic policy outside the jurisdiction
of democracy, as much as it can.
There certainly are times when austerity is necessary, but I would hope
the population of the US is responsible enough to agree about the threat
and some solution via democratic channels, instead of being left out of
the process by right wing and business interests who prefer bureaucratic
power.
As to Italy, the system is very complicated and I'd expect the motives
to be more arcane than "to restore Italian competitiveness". Which
Italian competitiveness -- Fiat? Italy has the fastest growth rate
in Europe, based on the Northern Italian underground economy. Maybe
the unions wanted to make a deal whereby Fiat would continue to be
restricted from using underground suppliers in exchange for an end
to COLAs, which don't mean much in a non-inflationary world economy.
But this is just speculation -- Piotr may well be right there. Italy
slipped through my mind when I thought of Western Europe.
Tony Wuersch
{amdcad!cae780,amd}!ubvax!tonyw
T. Dave Hudson
> Where economic matters are concerned, the relationships between crucial
> economic institutions -- the federal executive, the Federal Reserve, major
> corporations -- seem to me incredibly bureaucratic and insulated by
> law and convention from any popular recall or revision. The supposed
> need for a separation of economic management from politics has always
> seemed to me an excuse to keep voters uninformed and infantile where
> US national economic issues are concerned.
You object to the separation of economy and state, and yet
your objection is expressed with an example in which economy
has most disastrously not been separated from state. What
makes you think that anything other than the abolition of
the Federal Reserve, etc., would help? Surely you don't
claim that things would improve if people chose to keep the
Federal Reserve but run it from the polls.
David Hudson
Tony Wuersch
I don't object to the separation of economy and state bureaucracy. I
object to the separation of economy from democratic politics. There's
no reason democratic politics should equal state bureaucracy at all.
If you read what I wrote, I was criticizing the power of bureaucracy
in these economic decisions, not praising it. There's not only the
options of state control or private control. There's also democratic
control, for instance by referendum.
I'm not suggesting that people should have a line item veto of specific
Federal Reserve rulings or anything like that. I'm just suggesting that
the administration of the Federal Reserve should be recallable and
accountable in general, not just when terms of board members expire.
When people exercise their vote in meaningful ways, they don't go nuts;
they're often much more conservative and pragmatic than the media thinks
they are. And if they're not, then the state and nation have learned
something important which will keep the state responsive to people.
Frank Adams
>
>> Where economic matters are concerned, the relationships between crucial
>> economic institutions -- the federal executive, the Federal Reserve, major
>> corporations -- seem to me incredibly bureaucratic and insulated by
>> law and convention from any popular recall or revision.
>
>your objection is expressed with an example in which economy
>has most disastrously not been separated from state. What
>makes you think that anything other than the abolition of
>the Federal Reserve, etc., would help?
On what basis do you lable the operations of the Federal Reserve, etc,
as disastrous?
Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Bob Bickford
> In article <6...@frog.UUCP> t...@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) writes:
> >
> >> Where economic matters are concerned, the relationships between crucial
> >> economic institutions -- the federal executive, the Federal Reserve, major
> >> corporations -- seem to me incredibly bureaucratic and insulated by
> >> law and convention from any popular recall or revision.
> >
> >You object to the separation of economy and state, and yet
> >your objection is expressed with an example in which economy
> >has most disastrously not been separated from state. What
> >makes you think that anything other than the abolition of
> >the Federal Reserve, etc., would help?
>
> On what basis do you lable the operations of the Federal Reserve, etc,
> as disastrous?
>
> Frank Adams
Wake up Frank. Ever hear of inflation? Have you noticed that we're
using paper money in this country? And that the gov't just prints more
when it feels like it, and then has the Federal Reserve loan it to them
(presumably to make the whole thing look respectable)? Does it occur to
you that because we have a centralized monetary system we are vulnerable
to the machinations of those who control said system?
--
Robert Bickford (r...@well.uucp)
================================================
| I doubt if these are even my own opinions. |
================================================