Newsflash! Torek concedes a point
Paul V. Torek
should be left entirely to the free market (i.e. no state-sponsored
schooling), I said that education has positive externalities. While
I still think it does, Daniel K McKiernan has convinced me (by USPS mail)
that the externalities involved are too minor and to hard to identify to
justify a policy of subsidized education. (Possible exception: it
worries me that some parents might be insufficiently concerned with
their children's future welfare or might be biased against education.
Therefore, I might support state-sponsored education for young
children.)
--Paul V Torek
Paul V. Torek
> that the externalities involved are too minor and to hard to identify to
> --Paul V Torek
Since someone asked: the only serious externalities I could think of
involved in education are those associated with research and invention.
Education keeps people off welfare, but welfare wouldn't exist in a
libertarian society, so that wouldn't apply in my antilibertarian argument.
Education makes better voters, I think, but McKiernan disagreed (which
shows, I guess, how subjective that judgement is); and besides, democracy
wouldn't exist in Libertaria either (except in voluntary organizations).
Education promotes research and invention, which in turn have positive
effects on people not party to the relevant transactions. But only some
types of education do that, and only indirectly. And subsidizing education
in order to promote subsequent activities is bass-ackward; better to just
subsidize research directly. And invention wouldn't have significant
externalities in McKiernan's version of Libertaria, because they would be
copyrighted and copyrights would *never expire*.
One other way in which education of an individual might benefit the public
at large is that it makes him less likely to turn criminal. But, again,
this is only an INdirect effect; if we want to discourage crime, we can
do that more directly. (Although, since deterrence is imperfect, there
will still be some positive externality associated with education's effect
in reducing crime).
So that's why I've succumbed to the libertarian argument on education.
OK, socialists and centrists, where did I go wrong?
--Still the reluctant centrist, Paul V Torek, umcp-cs!flink
Piotr Berman
I find here very appealing vision: unemployed starve or hire themselves
for pennys, criminals are shot, children of uneducated poor cannot
afford education, criminals are shot (or banished), if somebody invents
penicilyn, then for eternity he can charge whatever market can bear, etc.
First problem: who enforces the law? Private agency? How about the
competition? How assure that a private law enforcement agency uses fair
practices to establish its fee structure (imagine Lebanese militias in
this role? Perhaps hire another agency to shoot out the first one.
Now, assume that law enforcement is public. That means that it belongs
to the state, and is supported by taxes. But we have no democracy.
Also, we (owners of education or property) must defend ourself agains
voluntary organisations of poor and uneducated (they could turn, God
forbid, democratic). Who, in absence of democracy should decide?
Possibly, taxpayers, proportionally to the taxes paid.
Conclusion: Libertaria is a police state governed by the rich. Advocating
democracy there is in effect a conspiracy to deprive people of their full
property rights; as such it is a crime. Uneducated poor cannot afford
the market value of education, thus they remain (hereditiary) uneducated
poor.
It occurred to me that this is exactly what our net free-marketeers
(and/or libertarians) have in mind. Of course, this is a logically
coherent system. Do we really like it? I don't.
Net.libertarians, please illuminate me where is the error here (if any).
Piotr Berman
Gabor Fencsik@ex2642
| Paul V Torek, following DKMcK's teachings, announces he is embracing
| the libertarian position against subsidized education because
| 'the externalities involved are too minor and hard to identify'.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do not state your criteria for deciding when subsidies are legitimate
so it is hard to reconstruct the reasoning you are echoing here.
I'll assume for the sake of argument that you support compulsory education
at, say, the grade school level. [If not, please disregard the rest of this
posting - but then you have to explain how illiterates will enter into
the voluntary contracts that are the lifeblood of Libertaria.]
So a child's compulsory education is now part of the cost of parenthood
just as complying with the smog laws is part of the cost of owning a car
in California. If I can't pay for installing the smog gizmo, I can't keep
the car. What is the legal sanction against parents who are unable to
pay for the legally required education? Fines? Jail? Impounding the kids?
At this point I conclude that, at the minimum, school vouchers to cover
elementary education are inevitable even in the most orthodox Libertaria.
Universities and vocational schools are outside the scope of this argument.
> Education makes better voters, I think, but McKiernan disagreed (which
> shows, I guess, how subjective that judgement is); and besides, democracy
> wouldn't exist in Libertaria either (except in voluntary organizations).
I am speechless. Are you prepared to defend this piece of wisdom or
do I have to seek enlightenment from DKMcK himself?
-----
Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,nsc,hplabs,intelca}!qantel!gabor
J Storrs Hall
> I find here very appealing vision: unemployed starve or hire themselves
Why do you think that the centralized organization of illegitimate
coercion, which is all that we're advocating the removal of, is the
motive force behind social concern and compassion? I don't believe it.
I believe that the amount of compassion is relatively orthogonal to
these political questions, but that the wealth of a society determines
the amount of activity and physical aid this compassion enables them
actually to give. Thus a rich society is a better place to live,
even if you are poor.
> First problem: who enforces the law? Private agency? How about the
>competition?
The competition keeps the prices low, the laws fair, and the cops on the
job. Unlike the present situation.
>... Perhaps hire another agency to shoot out the first one.
War is extremely expensive; it is almost never practiced except by
those organizations who obtain their incomes by theft, such as
governments and criminal gangs.
>Now, assume that law enforcement is public. ...
> Who, in absence of democracy should decide?
I don't advocate this, but you'll find that the decisions in a
"democracy" are made by a small group of bosses in a political hierarchy.
The difference between a two-party "democracy" (USA) and a one-party
"democracy" (USSR) is that here there are two sets of bosses who are
chosen from more or less at random.
>Conclusion: Libertaria is a police state governed by the rich. [etc]
If I have two dollars and you have one dollar, I get two lollipops and
you get one. If I have two votes and you have one, I get everything,
and you get nothing. Sorry!
> It occurred to me that this is exactly what our net free-marketeers
>(and/or libertarians) have in mind. ...
If you actually think this, you are remarkably close-minded. If, as
I rather suspect, you really understand that we believe that everyone
would be better off with the rights and principles we advocate, and
you are merly throwing "cute" insults, shame on you.
>Piotr Berman
--JoSH
Tony Wuersch
Nearly everywhere, Paul. First, you assume that direct means of
discouraging social problems are superior [more effective, more
humane, more honest, etc. -- perhaps] to indirect means, when historical
evidence shows loads of cases where direct attack on social problems
fails [Prohibition, for one example]. The statement that "if we want
to discourage crime, we can do that more directly." is maybe not so.
General, subsidized education shapes and defines a population by
guaranteeing that members of that population share certain characteristics.
Then problems which might be intractable given a population random in
all dimensions might become tractable -- crime being probably the best
case. Redefining the domain of a problem is a quintessentially indirect
strategy.
Second, instead of trying to put out a theory about what education does,
Paul goes scattershot looking for externalities, a set whose relative
completeness or incompleteness we have no way of judging. And there
are causal connections which elude me entirely. For instance, I fail
to see a link between education and invention. Many school systems
today get attacked for stifling creativity; Einstein had to go to
school in Switzerland before he could do well in school, for instance
(AE had a German upbringing and schooling).
And I fail to see a direct link between education and research (Of
course, *I* would fail to see this, since my degree was in Sociology
yet I do software engineering of a passable sort).
Education does one massive thing that its lack or its privatization
could not: it sets up people with credentials before they get their
first job. Hence it permits a match between many different levels
of jobs and many different levels of credentials. Hence it makes
filling a job a manageable task for most jobs, by helping to ensure
that the number of "qualified" applicants for a job match the number
of jobs more or less. It also makes filling a job a less risky
procedure, since applicants have accumulated a record which can
be compared with other records even before the first job.
If there is a link between education and research, it is the same
as a link between education and plumbing, or education and secretarial
skills, or education and teaching: education in each of these cases
provides the credentials by which those who fill jobs in research or
plumbing or secretarial skills or teaching can sort and evaluate
applicants.
A popular modern theory of education is that education sorts people
by educational credentials, keeps accounting of these credentials,
and helps to ensure that the supply of credentials more-or-less
matches the demand for credentials by adjusting educational standards
appropriately. Personally, I like this theory. I think it sums
up all that education can be observed to do.
Of course, the value of a credentialing system depends on the level
of publicity, the level of enforcement, and the level of agreement
on the value of particular credentials. Hence, since the best
guarantor of publicity, enforcement, and agreement between credentials
is a public regulatory authority, and because people outside the
educational system disturb the system of credentials, the place
for education is in the public sphere, and education should be
subsidized and regulated by a public authority.
Even in Libertaria.
Tony Wuersch
{amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
"And if you don't believe all the words I say,
I'm certified prime by the USDA!"
n...@inmet.uucp
>/* Written 8:51 pm Aug 6, 1985 by psuvax1!berman in inmet:net.politics.t */
>/* ---------- "Re: Newsflash! [Subsidized Educatio" ---------- */
>
> I find here very appealing vision: unemployed starve or hire themselves
>for pennys, criminals are shot, children of uneducated poor cannot
>afford education, criminals are shot (or banished), if somebody invents
>penicilyn, then for eternity he can charge whatever market can bear, etc.
Do you suppose that THIS time it will be enough to show that Mr. Berman
lacks imagination? Oh well...
The unemployed do not starve in a libertarian society unless there are
two conditions: 1) Lack of sufficient charity 2) lack of a sufficient
labor market. You have, so far as I can tell, no support for either
of these conditions. In particular, our government, supposedly responsive
to public needs, has relatively little trouble raising lots of money
for the poor, and private agencies exist in plenty. As for the labor
market, yes, the price of certain
sorts of labor would drop under a libertarian scheme -- for example,
I'll bet the median of doctor's salaries would be lower. On the
other hand, people who would be willing to work as (say) a plumber
or a hairdresser, or a taxi driver for
a low price would be ABLE to (no licensure in Libertaria), so many
avenues up from poverty that are closed now (unless you've the
right connections) would become open.
Criminals are shot? How terrible! Of course, it happens now.....
Children of uneducated poor cannot afford education? How odd. Even
though MY family couldn't afford it, I went to a private high school.
Why? There's this institution called "scholarships", sometimes, but
not always supported by the state. Of course, in OUR society, we
give the uneducated poor the right to go to ghetto schools. What a
great break!
Criminals are shot (again) or banished. How terrible. Not often
relevant to libertarian ideas, but since you brought it up....
Penicillin. Mr. Berman. If I discover penicillin, I don't "invent" it,
so I can't "patent" it. I may patent the process, or keep it secret,
but I can't patent a thing I discover (as opposed to invent)
and hence have a lot of trouble monopolizing it if someone comes up
with another process to extract the stuff.
In the case of "designer drugs" where I DO invent the drug, there
are similar problems for me in store because of substitute drugs.
> First problem: who enforces the law? Private agency? How about the
>competition? How assure that a private law enforcement agency uses fair
>practices to establish its fee structure (imagine Lebanese militias in
>this role? Perhaps hire another agency to shoot out the first one.
>
This is periodically discussed in the net. Suggest you read
The Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman.
>Now, assume that law enforcement is public. That means that it belongs
>to the state, and is supported by taxes. But we have no democracy.
>Also, we (owners of education or property) must defend ourself agains
>voluntary organisations of poor and uneducated (they could turn, God
>forbid, democratic). Who, in absence of democracy should decide?
>Possibly, taxpayers, proportionally to the taxes paid.
I don't mind if the poor turn democratic so long as they don't start
seizing my property or person. Let's not start setting up straw-men:
If law-enforcement is to be public, and is controlled by taxation, you
have some government mechanism for dealing with the people or you
have a gang. In the first case, your piteous moans about how
the people are underrepresented are irrelevant, in the second they
are spurious.
>
>Conclusion: Libertaria is a police state governed by the rich. Advocating
>democracy there is in effect a conspiracy to deprive people of their full
>property rights; as such it is a crime. Uneducated poor cannot afford
>the market value of education, thus they remain (hereditiary) uneducated
>poor.
Tsk! Unwarranted, inflammatory, and underinformed rhetoric of this sort
is hardly worth even responding to, but... What makes you think the
poor cannot afford the "market value of education"? They did so in old
Jewish ghettoes, they do so in new Chicago ghettoes. They've even done
so with subsidies from the Church.
Advocacy of democracy is not a crime in Libertaria. Conspiracy to
deprive someone of property is not a crime. DEPRIVING people of
property by force or fraud IS a crime, but this has little to do with
advocating democracy.
>
> It occurred to me that this is exactly what our net free-marketeers
>(and/or libertarians) have in mind. Of course, this is a logically
>coherent system. Do we really like it? I don't.
Nothing like knocking down the ol' straw man, eh?
> Net.libertarians, please illuminate me where is the error here (if any).
>
>Piotr Berman
>/* End of text from inmet:net.politics.t */
>
Tony Wuersch
>In article <16...@psuvax1.UUCP> ber...@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes:
>> I find here very appealing vision: unemployed starve or hire themselves
>>for pennys, ... [litany of Dickensian horrors]
>
>Why do you think that the centralized organization of illegitimate
>coercion, which is all that we're advocating the removal of, is the
>motive force behind social concern and compassion? I don't believe it.
>
>I believe that the amount of compassion is relatively orthogonal to
>these political questions, but that the wealth of a society determines
>the amount of activity and physical aid this compassion enables them
>actually to give. Thus a rich society is a better place to live,
>even if you are poor.
It's nice to know what you believe, Josh. But is it true that the poor
and down-and-out do better from private charity than from the modern
welfare state? Why should the abolition of "coercion" make people
any more generous? Why should the absence of any health standards,
for instance, which poor people should fulfill (food in the right
quantities, minimum shelter, etc.) aid the poor in meeting these
standards?
These aren't questions of belief; the burden's on libertarians to prove
these things (chuckle), not on the rest of us to take them for granted.
>> First problem: who enforces the law? Private agency? How about the
>>competition?
>
>The competition keeps the prices low, the laws fair, and the cops on the
>job. Unlike the present situation.
>
>>... Perhaps hire another agency to shoot out the first one.
>
>War is extremely expensive; it is almost never practiced except by
>those organizations who obtain their incomes by theft, such as
>governments and criminal gangs.
Not in Mad Max's world. Isn't libertaria more like that? Nobody
regulating the gangs? In Mad Max's world, everybody knows how to use
a gun ('cept for those helpless good folk...).
Poor women who can't afford an agency had better watch out. And even
then, they'd probably could only afford a crime deductable (i.e. the
agency pledges to protect only after the first ten crimes ...). They
would learn to adjust their expectations and live with this.
>>Now, assume that law enforcement is public. ...
>> Who, in absence of democracy should decide?
>
>I don't advocate this, but you'll find that the decisions in a
>"democracy" are made by a small group of bosses in a political hierarchy.
>The difference between a two-party "democracy" (USA) and a one-party
>"democracy" (USSR) is that here there are two sets of bosses who are
>chosen from more or less at random.
There are other differences. Are none of these significant ones?
>
>>Conclusion: Libertaria is a police state governed by the rich. [etc]
>
>If I have two dollars and you have one dollar, I get two lollipops and
>you get one. If I have two votes and you have one, I get everything,
>and you get nothing. Sorry!
>
Show me a democracy like this, and I might believe you, Josh. At least
I'd stop and think.
>> It occurred to me that this is exactly what our net free-marketeers
>>(and/or libertarians) have in mind. ...
>
>If you actually think this, you are remarkably close-minded. If, as
>I rather suspect, you really understand that we believe that everyone
>would be better off with the rights and principles we advocate, and
>you are merly throwing "cute" insults, shame on you.
>
>>Piotr Berman
>
>--JoSH
Josh! Give Piotr the benefit of the doubt, please. He had a problem.
On the one hand, if he liked libertaria, what he suggests is precisely
what he would have in mind -- that wow, he's rich, and nobody can tell
him what to do. He thinks that if you were realistic and liked liber-
taria, you would be as happy as he would be.
Maybe he thinks that having a glowing, peaceful view of libertaria and
being realistic are contradictory states, and he wants to retain his
belief in your realism.
I agree with Piotr. I'd rather believe in people than believe in
libertaria anytime.
Tony Wuersch
{amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
"And if you don't believe all the things I say,
Paul V. Torek
>Education does one massive thing that its lack or its privatization
>could not: it sets up people with credentials before they get their
>first job.
Why couldn't private education do this? (By the way: I neglected to
mention in my original article that I have in mind high scool and higher
education, primarily. I support education of kiddies at the public's
expense, at least for poor kids.)
>If there is a link between education and research, it is the same
>as a link between education and plumbing, or education and secretarial
>skills, or education and teaching: education in each of these cases
>provides the credentials [...]
True, but we should subsidize education-that-qualifies-people-for-research
because: If there are lots of scientists available, the price goes down,
therefore more research is performed. And we want more research than
would be produced in a laissez-faire situation, because research has
positive externalities.
However, the best way to promote research is probably to have the
government hand out grants (like NSF does). If enough demand for research
is created thereby, it is unnecessary to subsidize science education.
Paul V Torek "We have no lifestyle"
David Canzi
>by educational credentials, keeps accounting of these credentials,
>and helps to ensure that the supply of credentials more-or-less
>matches the demand for credentials by adjusting educational standards
>appropriately. Personally, I like this theory. I think it sums
>up all that education can be observed to do.
When I graduated from university I looked at the want ads trying to
figure out what my employment prospects were like. They didn't look
good. One ad I saw was a classic; I wish I had clipped it out and
kept it. The company that placed the ad wanted somebody with a
university degree in Computer Science and a minimum of 3 years
experience, on an IBM 4300 series machine (nothing else would do),
programming in -- brace yourself -- BASIC. 3 years experience to work
in BASIC. Feh.
Mind you, this was an extreme case. But I couldn't get over the
impression that most of the jobs that required a bachelor's degree
could be done by somebody just out of high school with a few months
of on-the-job training, and that most of the jobs that required an
advanced degree could be performed by somebody with a humbler degree.
I have a theory about education that's quite different from yours. The
personnel departments can raise the educational requirements for jobs
arbitrarily high to limit the number of people who will apply. So, if
the universities crank out a lot of bachelor's degrees, the personnel
departments will ask for master's degrees.
The result is that it takes more education to get hired than to do the
work. So people have to waste several years of their lives getting
extra education, that they only use once, when they show their would-be
employers their transcripts.
--
David Canzi
Ultimate tabloid headline: "Crazed by UFO radiation, pregnant man bites dog."
Tony Wuersch
>In article <2...@ubvax.UUCP> to...@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) writes:
>>Education does one massive thing that its lack or its privatization
>>could not: it sets up people with credentials before they get their
>>first job.
>
>Why couldn't private education do this? (By the way: I neglected to
>mention in my original article that I have in mind high scool and higher
>education, primarily. I support education of kiddies at the public's
>expense, at least for poor kids.)
Depends what you call private education. "Pseudo" private education
would be where every private system holds to the same or close to the
same rules for awarding credentials; then it might as well be public
for all the difference it makes.
The Ivy Leagues, for instance, are classic "pseudo" private schools.
But in Libertaria, it's easy to imagine public unity over the meaning
of credentials breaking down from competition between private schools.
At some threshold of disagreement over educational credentials, most
such credentials will lose their value. For-profit technical and
beauty schools already suffer this problem today.
I would think that investing in private education in the absence of
strong public standards would carry immense risks, since a huge
investment would be demanded for credentials whose future value
has no backing, hence is a dubious bet to estimate. Lots of people
might cut their feared losses and drop out needlessly.
Tony Wuersch
{amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
J Storrs Hall
>>In article <16...@psuvax1.UUCP> ber...@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes:
>>> I find here very appealing vision: unemployed starve or hire themselves
>>>for pennys, ... [litany of Dickensian horrors]
>>
>>Why do you think that the centralized organization of illegitimate
>>coercion, which is all that we're advocating the removal of, is the
>>motive force behind social concern and compassion? I don't believe it.
>>
>>I believe that the amount of compassion is relatively orthogonal to
>>these political questions, but that the wealth of a society determines
>>the amount of activity and physical aid this compassion enables them
>>actually to give. Thus a rich society is a better place to live,
>>even if you are poor.
>
>It's nice to know what you believe, Josh. But is it true that the poor
>and down-and-out do better from private charity than from the modern
>welfare state?
Absolutely. The welfare mess consists primarily of disincentives
to better oneself, and is one of the most degrading institutions
encountered by most Americans. Statists like yourself, who want to
reduce everybody to a kind of slavery to a massive bureaucracy, would
naturally have a hard time understanding this.
> Why should the abolition of "coercion" make people
>any more generous?
Can you read? Do you have any idea what the word "orthogonal" means?
I have included the whole quote from my original message above, so that
you could go over it again. Use a dictionary this time.
> Why should the absence of any health standards,
>for instance, which poor people should fulfill (food in the right
>quantities, minimum shelter, etc.) aid the poor in meeting these
>standards?
For the same reason that minimum wage laws cause unemployment, not
just temporarily but a whole class of the hard-core unemployed:
You have cut off the bottom rungs of the ladder, on the theory that
no one should be on the ground.
>These aren't questions of belief; the burden's on libertarians to prove
>these things (chuckle), not on the rest of us to take them for granted.
This isn't a court case. If you are so enamored of the process of
argumentation as to abandon the truth just because the libertarians
won't play by your petty rules, you are to be pitied more than censured.
Of course, the libertarians have explained the concepts and pointed to
more voluminous documentary evidence time and again, and the Wuersches
just keep whining, "Proof! We demand Proof!"
>>> First problem: who enforces the law? Private agency? How about the
>>>competition?
>>
>>The competition keeps the prices low, the laws fair, and the cops on the
>>job. Unlike the present situation.
>>
>>>... Perhaps hire another agency to shoot out the first one.
>>
>>War is extremely expensive; it is almost never practiced except by
>>those organizations who obtain their incomes by theft, such as
>>governments and criminal gangs.
>
>Not in Mad Max's world. Isn't libertaria more like that? Nobody
>regulating the gangs? In Mad Max's world, everybody knows how to use
>a gun ('cept for those helpless good folk...).
Now we know where Tony gets his models of social interaction and
economic feasibility. (Of course, I'm sure that if he wrote a
couple of papers about it, he could get a degree in Sociology or
something...)
>Poor women who can't afford an agency had better watch out. And even
>then, they'd probably could only afford a crime deductable (i.e. the
>agency pledges to protect only after the first ten crimes ...). They
>would learn to adjust their expectations and live with this.
--As opposed to the poor women living in Newark, NJ, and other such
statist paradises, where crime is virtually unknown...
Face it: police protection consists of a handful of very prosaic
services: Street patrol; after-the-fact investigation of robberies;
information collection and retrieval; and suspect apprehension and
detention. There are private agencies that provide all of these
services, and the price can be compared to existing police budgets:
it ranges from one tenth to one half. Your poor woman pays through
the nose for the existing (lousy) police protection, generally through
property taxes as part of her rent. Even areas with rent control allow
landlords to pass taxes straight through.
>>>Conclusion: Libertaria is a police state governed by the rich. [etc]
>>
>>If I have two dollars and you have one dollar, I get two lollipops and
>>you get one. If I have two votes and you have one, I get everything,
>>and you get nothing. Sorry!
>
>Show me a democracy like this, and I might believe you, Josh. At least
>I'd stop and think.
My native democracy, Mississippi, was very much like that between 1900
and the mid '60's, when it was changed by forces beyond the control
of the local majority.
>>> It occurred to me that this is exactly what our net free-marketeers
>>>(and/or libertarians) have in mind. ...
>>
>>If you actually think this, you are remarkably close-minded. If, as
>>I rather suspect, you really understand that we believe that everyone
>>would be better off with the rights and principles we advocate, and
>>you are merly throwing "cute" insults, shame on you.
>>
>>>Piotr Berman
>>
>>--JoSH
>
>Josh! Give Piotr the benefit of the doubt, please. He had a problem.
Well, I sure hope I've fixed it for him.
>On the one hand, if he liked libertaria, what he suggests is precisely
>what he would have in mind -- that wow, he's rich, and nobody can tell
>him what to do. He thinks that if you were realistic and liked liber-
>taria, you would be as happy as he would be.
This is stupid and you know it. One likes libertarian ideals because
they appeal to one's sense of fairness, justice, and the worth of
individual human beings. One dislikes libertarian ideals because one
is an elitist social engineer who likes to treat other people as
parts in a social machine, or social doctor who wants to cure the
ills of the social organism by treating people as cells therein.
The libertarian sees people as individuals, with individual RIGHTS
and concurrent responsibilities. The statist sees individuals
merely as social units, as means to build his grand scheme and not
ends in themselves. The libertarian likes his ideals because they
appeal to his inner sense of moral rightness.
>Maybe he thinks that having a glowing, peaceful view of libertaria and
>being realistic are contradictory states, and he wants to retain his
>belief in your realism.
I fear you're putting words in Piotr's mouth he wouldn't agree with.
I doubt that his original message was prompted by a concern over my
own sense of realism. I suspect instead it was prompted by an urge
to denounce what he (incorrectly) believed to be my (and others') motives.
>I agree with Piotr. I'd rather believe in people than believe in
>libertaria anytime.
>Tony Wuersch
You don't believe in people. You believe in the dehumanizing State.
You believe in feeding people like animals in cages. You believe in
denying them the economic rights they need to care for their own
physical needs; and denying them the responsibilities to themselves
and others, that they must have to develop into complete moral
human beings. I believe in trading; you believe in stealing.
I believe in cooperation; you believe in force. I believe in
voluntarism; you believe in conscription. I believe in freedom;
you believe in slavery.
--JoSH
Richard Carnes
> Statists like yourself, who want to
>reduce everybody to a kind of slavery to a massive bureaucracy, would
>naturally have a hard time understanding this. [etc.]
JoSH, this kind of comment is out of line. If you ever stopped
sneering at socialists long enough to understand what we are saying,
you might discover that we don't by any means deserve your contempt.
Robert Nozick, at least, takes the writings of socialists seriously
-- so should you. On the other hand, if we really don't have
anything worthwhile to say, perhaps you should stick to moderating
fa.poli-sci, a.k.a. *Libertarian Review*.
Now that I am very old and wise, I understand that the best way to
win people to my point of view is to try, as sympathetically as
possible, to understand *their* point of view, and even to take into
account the (extremely remote but conceivable) possibility that I may
have something to learn from them, rather than to attribute to them
disreputable motives.
Richard Carnes
n...@inmet.uucp
>/* Written 4:23 pm Aug 7, 1985 by ubvax!tonyw in inmet:net.politics.t */
>/* ---------- "Re: Newsflash! [Subsidized Educatio" ---------- */
>Education does one massive thing that its lack or its privatization
>could not: it sets up people with credentials before they get their
>first job. Hence it permits a match between many different levels
>of jobs and many different levels of credentials.
Huh? The GOVERNMENT runs the ETS folks who put out the
National Merit Scholarships? The SAT's?
The Achievement tests? Oho! That's news to me!
And what about private colleges? Does the government run them
also? My understanding was that the government CERTIFIED certain
things, but not, for example, the tests put out by ETS.
>Hence it makes
>filling a job a manageable task for most jobs, by helping to ensure
>that the number of "qualified" applicants for a job match the number
>of jobs more or less.
>It also makes filling a job a less risky
>procedure, since applicants have accumulated a record which can
>be compared with other records even before the first job.
A peculiar stance, given that the colleges and private high
schools depend on private achievement tests.....
>Of course, the value of a credentialing system depends on the level
>of publicity, the level of enforcement, and the level of agreement
>on the value of particular credentials. Hence, since the best
>guarantor of publicity, enforcement, and agreement between credentials
>is a public regulatory authority,
Support please.
>and because people outside the
>educational system disturb the system of credentials,
Support for the implication that the impact that outsiders have
is "distortion" and not "adjustment to reality", please.
>the place
>for education is in the public sphere, and education should be
>subsidized and regulated by a public authority.
Given a false premise, it's possible to prove anything. Please back
yours up.
>
>Even in Libertaria.
>
Ha!
>Tony Wuersch
>{amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
>
>"And if you don't believe all the words I say,
> I'm certified prime by the USDA!"
Prime? Well, RIPE maybe.....
n...@inmet.uucp
>/* Written 1:38 pm Aug 9, 1985 by ubvax!tonyw in inmet:net.politics.t */
>/* ---------- "Re: Newsflash! [Subsidized Educatio" ---------- */
>>In article <16...@psuvax1.UUCP> ber...@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes:
>>> I find here very appealing vision: unemployed starve or hire themselves
>>>for pennys, ... [litany of Dickensian horrors]
>>
>>Why do you think that the centralized organization of illegitimate
>>coercion, which is all that we're advocating the removal of, is the
>>motive force behind social concern and compassion? I don't believe it.
>>
>>I believe that the amount of compassion is relatively orthogonal to
>>these political questions, but that the wealth of a society determines
>>the amount of activity and physical aid this compassion enables them
>>actually to give. Thus a rich society is a better place to live,
>>even if you are poor.
>
>It's nice to know what you believe, Josh. But is it true that the poor
>and down-and-out do better from private charity than from the modern
>welfare state? Why should the abolition of "coercion" make people
>any more generous? Why should the absence of any health standards,
>for instance, which poor people should fulfill (food in the right
>quantities, minimum shelter, etc.) aid the poor in meeting these
>standards?
>
>These aren't questions of belief; the burden's on libertarians to prove
>these things (chuckle), not on the rest of us to take them for granted.
>
If you want a lot of evidence for this, I suggest you read Charles
Murray's "Losing Ground". In brief, the welfare state has harmed those
it wished to help, and so far (a social-worker friend tells me) the best
that any liberal publication has been able to do is grumble that maybe
things would have been even worse if the welfare state hadn't been around.
A pretty weak argument from those who have stolen billions of dollars
ostensibly to help. More evidence? How about "The State Against Blacks"
by Walter Williams.
The abolition of coercion need not make people more generous -- to
spend $1 on a poor person, the Federal government must take in
$5. A private agency need take in only about $1.10. Remember, we're
talking about a society in which anybody could take people on
taxi rides, cut their hair, or do social work without certification
from the state or fear that the state might shut them down without
certification from a union, so some proportion of the poor who don't
have jobs now would have jobs in libertaria.
Of course, if you REALLY think that people a libertarian society would
be less generous, you should bear in mind that you are saying that
people tend to give less than a fifth voluntarily than they do under
coercion, and that the poor have not been denied reasonable jobs
by such things as minimum wage laws and licensure. Not a tenable
position. You're also assuming that a large number of people will
need charity -- remember Daniel Mck.'s very well-defended discussion
of unemployment in libertaria.
The reason that the absence of health standards would help the poor to
meet those the real standards of health is that the existence of a
standard in law merely imposes a penalty for not meeting the standard
("we arrest you because these houses you built are too small, or because
the food you provide is too meager") but doesn't accomplish any increase
in the amount of housing or food provided. In other words, making it
illegal to serve inferior food doesn't make it a requirement to serve
good food.
An example? Why sure! Just take a look at the abandonment rate of
buildings under rent control in New York city. If you'd rather not
look it up, just take a cab through Harlem sometime. Those buildings
with the metal sheets blocking the windows are examples.
Another example? Certainly. Kidney machines are rationed and
subsidized by the government. There has been relatively little research
on improving these machines because the whole thing is pretty closely
regulated, there have also been pretty severe limits placed on access to
those machines. For details, see Reason Magazine, August 1984.
>>> First problem: who enforces the law? Private agency? How about the
>>>competition?
>>
>>The competition keeps the prices low, the laws fair, and the cops on the
>>job. Unlike the present situation.
>>
>>>... Perhaps hire another agency to shoot out the first one.
>>
>>War is extremely expensive; it is almost never practiced except by
>>those organizations who obtain their incomes by theft, such as
>>governments and criminal gangs.
>
>Not in Mad Max's world. Isn't libertaria more like that? Nobody
>regulating the gangs? In Mad Max's world, everybody knows how to use
>a gun ('cept for those helpless good folk...).
Excuse me, but in Mad Max's world, what we have are very small
governments running around harassing people. In the latest film
("Beyond Thunderdome") we see the beginning of private law-enforcement
and trade (essentially a town that forms from a trading post).
Sure it's anarchic and brutal, but I'd swap it for the large
countries that presumably conducted the nuclear war, wouldn't you?
>Poor women who can't afford an agency had better watch out.
Or, perhaps apply to the Red Cross, their church, the Guardian Angels
(who do not, as I recall, solicit donations) for the money to support
themselves. As I recall, the per capita cost of our current municipal
law-enforcement system is pretty low anyhow (on the order of $300/year,
in NYC if I remember right) (Note -- this is the COST, not how much had
to be raised in taxes to enable the NYPD to spend that much). Most
likely the poor woman who can't afford an agency would pay the agency as
part of her rent. By the way, in libertaria, she could own a handgun
for self-defense. Certain statist types believe that she shouldn't have
that right.
>And even
>then, they'd probably could only afford a crime deductable (i.e. the
>agency pledges to protect only after the first ten crimes ...). They
>would learn to adjust their expectations and live with this.
>
Such nonsense! Let me see -- you're arguing that in a society with
a much easier path to economic self-sufficiency, a society in which
no public institutionalization of poverty or broken homes is going on,
the crime rate would be the same or worse than what we have now?
G'wan!
>...
>>
>>>Conclusion: Libertaria is a police state governed by the rich. [etc]
>>
>>If I have two dollars and you have one dollar, I get two lollipops and
>>you get one. If I have two votes and you have one, I get everything,
>>and you get nothing. Sorry!
>>
>
>Show me a democracy like this, and I might believe you, Josh. At least
>I'd stop and think.
Stop and think: how long did it take to get out of Vietnam? Why?
Among other reasons, the people who were forced to go there accounted
for a fairly small proportion of the vote.
How long have New England blue laws prohibited people from
working on Sunday? Until (do you suppose) a large enough political
coalition was formed to weaken them?
In the Reason Magazine article quoted above, it is pointed out that
Hemophiliacs do not receive special government aid for their treatments,
even though those are at least as expensive as kidney machine treatment.
Why? Because the polital push was on for renal-failure victims. They,
in short, had the votes.
>I agree with Piotr. I'd rather believe in people than believe in
>libertaria anytime.
>
That's quite a statment for someone who seems to be advocating the
welfare state..... Do you believe in people, or do you believe in
people with the right chains on them?
J Storrs Hall
>JoSH sez:
>> Statists like yourself, who want to
>>reduce everybody to a kind of slavery to a massive bureaucracy, would
>>naturally have a hard time understanding this. [etc.]
>
>JoSH, this kind of comment is out of line. If you ever stopped
>sneering at socialists long enough to understand what we are saying,
>you might discover that we don't by any means deserve your contempt.
This kind of comment is the meat and potatoes of netland rhetoric,
and it is remarkably selective of you to pipe up when a libertarian
does it but remain silent while yammerheads like sevener slop their
copious rantings across the net. Besides, I was talking about Wuersch,
a considerably less perspicuous fellow than yourself.
>Robert Nozick, at least, takes the writings of socialists seriously
>-- so should you. On the other hand, if we really don't have
>anything worthwhile to say, perhaps you should stick to moderating
>fa.poli-sci, a.k.a. *Libertarian Review*.
I that particular message, I was trying to give you an insight into
the moral and emotional underpinnings of libertarian thought--which had
just been badly and somewhat maliciously misrepresented by Mr. Berman.
(Why didn't you call Berman to task?)
The basic justice of the libertarian ideas, our insistence that people
be treated as human beings individually and not a collective mass, is
a point that as far as I can tell is completely missed by socialists
who attempt to grapple with libertarian thought.
>Now that I am very old and wise, I understand that the best way to
>win people to my point of view is to try, as sympathetically as
>possible, to understand *their* point of view, and even to take into
>account the (extremely remote but conceivable) possibility that I may
>have something to learn from them, rather than to attribute to them
>disreputable motives.
>Richard Carnes
This may come as a shock to you, but I flatter myself that I *do*
understand the socialist point of view, and I can even tell you what
is wrong with it in a very few words. Socialists view the people
of the world, and their economic interactions, as a great machine
or system, and see things that are wrong, and want to fix them.
(Please note that I'm assuming here that the socialists are both
well-intentioned *and* competent!) Now when you go to fix a machine,
there are two points to the process that I must point out. First,
you change parts or modify the design of the machine without any
consideration for the well-being of the parts in and of themselves,
but only to make sure they properly serve the function they were
intended for. If they are misshapen you throw them away. (Consider
the purges that are a hallmark of the nations that embrace Marxism
thoroughgoingly.) Libertarians believe that consideration of the
individual is foremost, that the rights of people are primary and
those of groups only derivative.
Secondly, consider the relationship between the mechanic and the
machine. The mechanic has the say; the machine just sits there
and gets operated on. The socialist has his ideas as to what the
other people in society should be like, and believes that force
should be used to make them that way. After all, mechanics often
have to use force, especially on old, rusty machines. After the
great social machine is all fixed up and oiled properly, very little
force will be necessary to keep it running smoothly...
The libertarian believes that the other people have as much right
to decide what they want to do, or to be like, as he does--indeed,
they have the right, and he doesn't. The libertarian does not visualize
himself as something outside society, shaping it into his bright
vision of utopia. He believes that every person in society should
be free to work toward his *own* idea of the good life. Can we help
it if many of the real people out there want cars and TVs and children
and vacations and all the bourgeois values that socialists disdain
so much? We just don't have the itch to change them the socialists do.
Take away the portion of the socialist rhetoric that has been used to
further special interest over the past century, and what you are left with
is a vision of a utopia (e.g. some of Marx's writings quoted by Carnes
right here, or Looking Backward by Edward Bellamy). Everybody is caring,
everybody chips in, each works for the good of all. But people aren't
like that. People work for themselves, for their families, and to a
lesser extent for friends and strangers where they can see the good effect
they're having. The problem with the socialist utopia is that an average,
ordinary person from the real world would be considered a perverted,
selfish criminal there. So the socialist looks at the real, self-
interested people of the world around him, with a jaundiced eye.
I don't buy that vision. A world fit only for saints is no world
for me. My idea of a utopia is a lot closer to the real world, a
bustling garish place where anything can be had for a price--but with
pockets and hinterlands of calm and nature, where peace and serenity
can be had--for a price.
A responsible society cannot be made of irresponsible people, and
responsible people cannot be had by treating everyone like children.
The socialist prescription -- if it worked as planned -- would put
food in every stomach; but I believe that self-responsibility is
a better thing in the long run than food. Responsibility is not
taught by making people immune from the consequences of their actions.
--JoSH
Richard Carnes
> Besides, I was talking about Wuersch,
> a considerably less perspicuous fellow than yourself.
The reverse is true, and you are also unfair to Sevener. Since I
won't be able to respond to the remainder of your article for a week
or so, I'll let Tony (if he wishes) take up the cudgels.
Richard Carnes
Peter da Silva
..."gives dog AIDS"...
--
Peter da Silva (the mad Australian werewolf)
UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter
MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076
Tony Wuersch
>In article <2...@ubvax.UUCP> to...@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) writes:
>>A popular modern theory of education is that education sorts people
>>by educational credentials, keeps accounting of these credentials,
>>and helps to ensure that the supply of credentials more-or-less
>>matches the demand for credentials by adjusting educational standards
>>appropriately. Personally, I like this theory. I think it sums
>>up all that education can be observed to do.
>
>personnel departments can raise the educational requirements for jobs
>arbitrarily high to limit the number of people who will apply. So, if
>the universities crank out a lot of bachelor's degrees, the personnel
>departments will ask for master's degrees.
>
>The result is that it takes more education to get hired than to do the
>work. So people have to waste several years of their lives getting
>extra education, that they only use once, when they show their would-be
>employers their transcripts.
That's not a different theory at all. I said "helps to ensure", not
"ensures". Big difference. There's definitely some inflation of
credentials whenever a glut in supply for a particular job arises.
Equilibrium is as usual the micro pipe dream.
On the other hand, personnel departments are becoming aware that screening
by credentials can lead to hiring overqualified people -- who may by
virtue of being overqualified applying for a lesser job be indicating
undercompetence in past jobs (*maybe*, note). So the strategy of upping
credential requirements is usually not what happens; more often upping
experience requirements is what happens, I think.
Tony Wuersch
{amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
"And if you don't believe all the things I say,
Tony Wuersch
>
>>(Tony Wuersch)
>>Education does one massive thing that its lack or its privatization
>>could not: it sets up people with credentials before they get their
>>first job. Hence it permits a match between many different levels
>>of jobs and many different levels of credentials.
>
>
>>Hence it makes
>>filling a job a manageable task for most jobs, by helping to ensure
>>that the number of "qualified" applicants for a job match the number
>>of jobs more or less.
>>It also makes filling a job a less risky
>>procedure, since applicants have accumulated a record which can
>>be compared with other records even before the first job.
>
>A peculiar stance, given that the colleges and private high
>schools depend on private achievement tests.....
>
Again here, private achievement tests have nothing to do with jobs. They
react to the failure of high school or elementary schools to generate
decent credentials -- a failure of the American system of local rule
over high school and elementary education which systems following
national educational standards don't share.
The solution here is stricter national standards, not looser ones.
And personnel departments don't look at ETS results, anyway.
>
>>Of course, the value of a credentialing system depends on the level
>>of publicity, the level of enforcement, and the level of agreement
>>on the value of particular credentials. Hence, since the best
>>guarantor of publicity, enforcement, and agreement between credentials
>>is a public regulatory authority,
>
>Support please.
>
I assume you agree with the first sentence. As far as the second goes,
I think of a credentialing scheme like a security setup. The most
secure setups are where an outside, central agency takes charge of
security and makes sure that all sub-central security arrangements
are consistent, so that the system as a whole is secure against hostile
entry. And where everyone knows the rules. The same rules which
maintain secure environments are the rules which maintain consistent
credentialing systems.
The only central agency in a state which has coercive powers over
people within the state is the state. So it has a role if a social
goal is that educational credentials should be secure and consistent.
>>and because people outside the
>>educational system disturb the system of credentials,
>
>Support for the implication that the impact that outsiders have
>is "distortion" and not "adjustment to reality", please.
>
The debate over affirmative action. Anyone who gets benefited by
affirmative action is assumed to be distorting the system because
they didn't obtain the necessary credentials, or their credentials
were watered down and inflated compared to similar credentials held
by others. These people are outsiders because they break the rules
relating credentials to jobs. Now, if you believe that affirmative
action is adjustment to reality, then I have no argument with you.
>>the place
>>for education is in the public sphere, and education should be
>>subsidized and regulated by a public authority.
>
>Given a false premise, it's possible to prove anything. Please back
>yours up.
I'm guessing here as to what you think is the false premise. Maybe
you could tell me in some reply or future article.
Tony Wuersch
{amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
Tony Wuersch
>
>(Tony Wuersch)
>>
>>and down-and-out do better from private charity than from the modern
>>welfare state? Why should the abolition of "coercion" make people
>>any more generous? Why should the absence of any health standards,
>>for instance, which poor people should fulfill (food in the right
>>quantities, minimum shelter, etc.) aid the poor in meeting these
>>standards?
>
>Murray's "Losing Ground". In brief, the welfare state has harmed those
>it wished to help, and so far (a social-worker friend tells me) the best
>that any liberal publication has been able to do is grumble that maybe
>things would have been even worse if the welfare state hadn't been around.
>A pretty weak argument from those who have stolen billions of dollars
>ostensibly to help.
I'm glad you say "evidence" and not "good evidence". The best the New
Republic did (and it's not entirely a liberal publication) was to smash
the data used in "Losing Ground" to pieces. Its data was selective at its
worst -- the worst cities in the worst years, and the worst groups.
>The abolition of coercion need not make people more generous -- to
>spend $1 on a poor person, the Federal government must take in
>$5. A private agency need take in only about $1.10. Remember, we're
>talking about a society in which anybody could take people on
>taxi rides, cut their hair, or do social work without certification
>from the state or fear that the state might shut them down without
>certification from a union, so some proportion of the poor who don't
>have jobs now would have jobs in libertaria.
A private agency need take in only about $1.10 because it has no
obligation to help everybody. It only has to help people who make it
easy to be helped. People who make it hard to be helped get dumped
on the government. In Libertaria, people who make it hard to be
helped, schizophrenics being the most notable case (and there are
MILLIONS of them around, some of whom I know), still would be turned
away by private agencies. Remember, the criteria for success for
private agencies tends to be the number of bodies they end up helping.
Any body that makes life hard on them would reduce the "success" rate.
>Of course, if you REALLY think that people a libertarian society would
>be less generous, you should bear in mind that you are saying that
>people tend to give less than a fifth voluntarily than they do under
>coercion, and that the poor have not been denied reasonable jobs
>by such things as minimum wage laws and licensure. Not a tenable
>position. You're also assuming that a large number of people will
>need charity -- remember Daniel Mck.'s very well-defended discussion
>of unemployment in libertaria.
Again, there are millions of schizophrenics who don't have to live in
institutions. I don't remember Daniel's discussion. And I really
think people in a libertarian society would be as generous as other
people with similar after-tax incomes today. That sounds reasonable
to me. And I don't think most people I know are very generous.
>The reason that the absence of health standards would help the poor to
>meet those the real standards of health is that the existence of a
>standard in law merely imposes a penalty for not meeting the standard
>("we arrest you because these houses you built are too small, or because
>the food you provide is too meager") but doesn't accomplish any increase
>in the amount of housing or food provided. In other words, making it
>illegal to serve inferior food doesn't make it a requirement to serve
>good food.
Not true at the federal level. Courts can look at the intent of
legislation, and frequently do, to guarantee that compliance with the
law does not mean violation of the intent of a law. Also often not
true at the state level. Often true at the local level.
>An example? Why sure! Just take a look at the abandonment rate of
>buildings under rent control in New York city. If you'd rather not
>look it up, just take a cab through Harlem sometime. Those buildings
>with the metal sheets blocking the windows are examples.
Local problem -- the problem with housing policy is that it's defined
as a local problem, so people who want to cheat on a local law can
just move out or transfer their investment assets. Landlords should
be forced to keep reserves for maintenance of buildings at all times
as national policy, enforced by the FBI. Otherwise their buildings
go up for sale IMMEDIATELY.
>Another example? Certainly. Kidney machines are rationed and
>subsidized by the government. There has been relatively little research
>on improving these machines because the whole thing is pretty closely
>regulated, there have also been pretty severe limits placed on access to
>those machines. For details, see Reason Magazine, August 1984.
Boy, you're in a mess on this one. Government pays for kidney maintenance
because most kidney disease sufferers can't afford dialysis. So the
government created the market for kidney machines in the first place,
by making current technology affordable.
The technology is there; would you have thousands die while private
market analysts judge if investing in dialysis research is potentially
profitable? What if they decide that it isn't? I for one am not sure
it would be profitable on an unsubsidized basis.
And besides, government's not a bad market, either, if it operates a
proper bidding process. Then the lowest price competitors get to sell
to government, and if there's competition, prices will go down.
>>I agree with Piotr. I'd rather believe in people than believe in
>>libertaria anytime.
>>
>
>That's quite a statment for someone who seems to be advocating the
>welfare state..... Do you believe in people, or do you believe in
>people with the right chains on them?
In the absence of decent moral education, I believe in people with the
right chains on them.
Tony Wuersch
{amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
Martin Taylor
>>I agree with Piotr. I'd rather believe in people than believe in
>>libertaria anytime.
>>Tony Wuersch
>
>You believe in feeding people like animals in cages. You believe in
>denying them the economic rights they need to care for their own
>physical needs; and denying them the responsibilities to themselves
>and others, that they must have to develop into complete moral
>human beings. I believe in trading; you believe in stealing.
>I believe in cooperation; you believe in force. I believe in
>voluntarism; you believe in conscription. I believe in freedom;
>you believe in slavery.
>
>--JoSH
An extraordinary response to a compassionate and reasoned article!
Without (this time) commenting on libertarian theory or rationality,
I would like to make a sociological observation. The USA, generally
speaking, is probably the country that most strongly advocates freedom
of economic choice. It also seems to be the country that breeds people
who fanatically distrust state activities. In Europe, the state is
more deeply involved in welfare and other activities that might be
called "control". Workers frequently have part-ownership in the places
where they work, and their representatives are on the Boards of Directors.
People there, do NOT seem to want to move to a more libertarian condition.
Is this because they are brainwashed and cannot see where their own
interests lie (No, of course not: Libertarians deny this possibility),
or is it because their situation is preferable to the more laissez-faire
conditions here? Perhaps ease of cooperation, based on social and
governmental structures, outweighs the *feeling* of freedom that would
be available to a few people in a Libertaria.
To parallel JoSH's peroration:
>I do believe in people. I believe in the humanizing State.
>I believe in feeding people rather than letting them starve. I believe in
>allowing them the economic rights they need to care for their own
>physical needs; and allowing them the responsibilities to themselves
>and others, that they must have to develop into complete moral
>human beings. I believe in trading; no-one believes in stealing.
>I believe in cooperation; I believe that force must sometimes be used. I believe in
>voluntarism; I believe we owe something to each other. I believe in freedom;
>I believe in enslaving machines, not people.
I believe that JoSH's Libertaria would lead directly to all the
things he claims not to believe in.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
Robert A. Weiler
Keywords:
In article <2820...@inmet.UUCP> n...@inmet.UUCP writes:
>
>
>If you want a lot of evidence for this, I suggest you read Charles
>Murray's "Losing Ground". In brief, the welfare state has harmed those
I must get a copy of this book I guess. As refutation, Teddy White in
"The Making of the President 1972" claims that the average income for
blacks rose dramtically under the Great Society. I can ferret out the
exact numbers if you want. Apparently they came from the 1970 census,
but its hard to tell. On the down side, the number of broken homes
also rose dramatically.
>The abolition of coercion need not make people more generous -- to
>spend $1 on a poor person, the Federal government must take in
>$5. A private agency need take in only about $1.10. Remember, we're
Just curious, but what is the source for this?
>Stop and think: how long did it take to get out of Vietnam? Why?
I was going to argue against this and point out that in fact it
was popular opinion and elections which did get us out, but on reflection,
it does seem to me that it would never have happend if there was no
draft and the American people where sent a bill every month from
the Defense Company. So score 1 for the Libertarians.
Bob Weiler. ps could we not meander so much in the future?
Richard Carnes
>If you want a lot of evidence for this, I suggest you read Charles
>Murray's "Losing Ground". In brief, the welfare state has harmed those
>it wished to help, and so far (a social-worker friend tells me) the best
>that any liberal publication has been able to do is grumble that maybe
>things would have been even worse if the welfare state hadn't been around.
Christopher Jencks gives Murray a point-by-point refutation in the
May 9, 1985 *New York Review*. Jencks basically concludes that
*Losing Ground* is poor sociology, although it addresses some
important and interesting questions.
To begin with, contrary to Murray's claim, it is not true that the
*material* condition of the poor deteriorated between 1965 and 1980.
First, the official poverty rate declined from 1950 to 1980:
1950 1960 1965 1970 1980
P.R. 30 22 17 13 13 %
(It has gone back up to ~16% since 1980.) In addition, the official
poverty line represented a higher standard of living in 1980 than in
1965, because of a flaw in the way the Consumer Price Index measured
housing costs. Furthermore, the official statistics do not take into
account the in-kind benefits provided by welfare programs such as
food stamps and low-cost medical care and housing. Jencks: "In
1965, Medicare and Medicaid did not exist, food stamps reached fewer
than 2 percent of the poor, and there were 600,000 public housing
units for 33 million poor people." Taking these benefits into
account, Jencks estimates the "net" poverty rate at 18% in 1965 and
at 10% in 1980. Another consideration is that the *access* of the
poor to medical care has improved since the 60's, resulting in an
improvement in poor people's health. Statistics on infant mortality
and life expectancy seem to bear out this claim.
If I have time later on I will discuss Jencks' reasoning in more
detail, but for now I will just quote some of his conclusions:
"First, contrary to what Murray claims, `net' poverty declined almost
as fast after 1965 as it had before. Second, the decline in poverty
after 1965, unlike the decline before 1965, occurred despite
unfavorable economic conditions, and depended to a great extent on
government efforts to help the poor. Third, the groups that
benefited from this `generous revolution,' as Murray rightly calls
it, were precisely the groups that legislators hoped would benefit,
notably the aged and the disabled. The groups that did not benefit
were the ones that legislators did not especially want to help.
Fourth, these improvements took place despite demographic changes
that would ordinarily have made things worse. Given the
difficulties, legislators should, I think, look back on their efforts
to improve the material conditions of poor people's lives with some
pride....
"Murray's explanation of the rise in illegitimacy thus seems to have
at least three flaws. First, most mothers of illegitimate children
initially live with their parents, not their lovers, so AFDC rules
are not very relevant. Second, the trend in illegitimacy is not well
correlated with the trend in AFDC benefits or with rule changes.
Third, illegitimacy rose among movie stars and college graduates as
well as welfare mothers. All this suggests that both the rise of
illegitimacy and the liberalization of AFDC reflect broader changes
in attitudes toward sex, law, and privacy, and that they had little
direct effect on each other." [end of quote from Jencks]
Murray, in discussing the percentage of people who fall below the
poverty line when transfer payments from the government (Soc. Sec.,
AFDC, etc.) are ignored, calls this "the most damning" measure of
policy failure, because "economic independence -- standing on one's
own abilities and accomplishments -- is of paramount importance in
determining the quality of a family's life." Jencks comments: "This
is a classic instance of wishful thinking. Murray wants people to
work (or clip coupons) because such behavior keeps taxes low and
maintains a public moral order of which both he and I approve, so he
asserts that failure to work will undermine family life. He doesn't
try to prove this empirically; he says it is self-evident. But the
claim is not only not self-evident; it is almost certainly wrong....
"While I share Murray's enthusiasm for work, I cannot see much
evidence that changes in government programs significantly affected
men's willingness to work during the 1960's. When we look at the
unemployed, for example, we find that about half of all unemployed
workers were getting unemployment benefits in 1960. The figure was
virtually identical in both 1970 and 1980. Thus while the rules
governing unemployment compensation did change, the changes did not
make joblessness more attractive economically.... Since black women
receive about half of all AFDC money, Murray's argument implies that
as AFDC rules became more liberal and benefits rose in the late
1960s, unemployment should have risen among young black men. Yet
Murray's own data show that such men's unemployment rates fell during
the late 1960s. Murray's argument also implies that young black
men's unemployment rate should have fallen in the 1970s, when the
purchasing power of AFDC benefits was falling. In fact, their
unemployment rates rose.... Murray is so intent on blaming
unemployment on the government that he discusses alternative
explanations only in order to dismiss them....
"As Murray rightly emphasizes, no society can survive if it allows
people to violate its rules with impunity on the grounds that `the
system is at fault.' Murray also argues that the liberal impulse to
blame `the system' for blacks' problems had an important part in the
social, cultural, and moral deterioration of black urban communities
after 1965. The such deterioration occurred in many cities is beyond
doubt.... All this being conceded, the questions remains: were all
these ills attributable to people's willingness to `blame the
system,' as Murray claims?... Murray is right to emphasize that the
problem was worst in black American communities. But recall that his
explanation is that `we -- meaning the not-poor and the
un-disadvantaged -- had changed the rules of their world. Not our
world, just theirs.' If that is the explanation, why do all the same
trends appear everywhere else as well?
"*Losing Ground* does not answer such questions. Indeed, it does not
ask them. But it does at least cast debate over social policy in
what I believe are the correct terms. First, it does not simply ask
how much our social policies cost, or appear to cost, but whether
they work. Second, it makes clear that a successful program must not
only help those it seeks to help but must do so in such a way as not
to reward folly or vice. Third, it reminds us that social policy is
about punishment as well as rewards, and that a policy that is never
willing to countenance suffering, however deserved, will not long
endure. The liberal coalition that dominated Washington from 1964 to
1980 did quite well by the first of these criteria: its major
programs, contrary to Murray's argument, did help the poor. But it
did not do as well by the other two criteria: it often rewarded
folly and vice and it never had enough confidence in its own norms of
behavior to assert that those who violated these norms deserved
whatever sorrows followed."
>More evidence? How about "The State Against Blacks"
>by Walter Williams.
How about *The New American Poverty* by Michael Harrington, as long
as we are throwing books at each other.
Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
w.georger
protection
protection
Some Americans will soon be buying the $4000 Yugo automobiles imported from
Yugoslavia. I would not want to buy a product from any country that does
not at least have free speech and free press. Does anyone on the net have
any easily verifiable facts/opinions regarding the status of those rights
in the State of Yugoslavia?
Norm Andrews
AT&T Information Systems Laboratories
Building 114A
Room HO1C325
Crawfords Corner Road
Holmdel, New Jersey 07733
(201)834-3685
vax135!mtuxo!whg1 (temporarily better E-mail address)
or:
vax135!ariel!norm
--
Norm Andrews
AT&T Information Systems Laboratories
Building 114A
Room HO1C325
Crawfords Corner Road
Holmdel, New Jersey 07733
(201)834-3685
vax135!mtuxo!whg1 (temporarily better E-mail address)
or:
vax135!ariel!norm
Gabor Fencsik@ex2642
One quick and obvious comment on JoSH's critique of socialist thought using
the extended metaphor of the social engineer operating on society 'from the
outside', adjusting or discarding parts of the machinery. The metaphor is
apt and I won't argue with it but it sounds strange coming from a libertarian
who is proposing radical reforms which would mean adjusting and discarding
a great deal and walking over a great many people. [I am not talking about
Libertaria now but the means of getting there from here.]
Take the dismantling of the welfare state, for example. Your starting point is
a society in which around one third of all households receive a part of their
income from government sources. As a matter of political reality, such
payments represent a form of property right no less real than the income
from bonds inherited from a rich uncle. This political reality will not
disappear through rational argument about legitimacy, force and fraud -
or by convincing the deluded owners of these phantom property rights
that they are bound to be better off when the experiment is finished.
You can only make it disappear through the very same process of social
engineering that you find so abhorrent in socialists. Such social engineering
would have to be underpinned by systemic arguments treating society as
a whole, just as the dreaded socialist doctrines do.
So if systemic thinking and a propensity for social surgery are inadmissible
then socialists and libertarians are equally guilty of thought-crime.
-----
Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,hplabs,intelca}!qantel!gabor
Charli Phillips
>
>Does anyone on the net have
>in the State of Yugoslavia?
>Norm Andrews
Believe it or not, one of the best and most reliable sources of
information on the status of human rights in Europe is our own
government. As a party to the Helsinki accords, the United States
carefully tracks violations of the provisions of that agreement.
You would be interested in Basket Three (the Human Rights basket).
For recent information, just write:
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC
Ask for hearings and mark-ups related to human rights in Yugoslavia.
They are free. (If you are really interested in human rights
world-wide, you might ask to be put on their mailing list for all
Basket Three hearings. My husband and I have done that.) If there is
a depository of government documents at an area library, you might check
there if you want the information fast. CSCE can be slow to respond,
but they do send you the information eventually.
Other reliable sources of information are Amnesty International
(general human rights information) and Christian Response International
(religious freedom). (There are lots of others; I can vouch for the
reliability of these two organizations.)
As far as Eastern Bloc countries go, Yugoslavia is bad, but not by
any means the worst. It allows more rights and liberties than, say,
Romania or Czechoslovakia, but is more repressive than East Germany
or Poland. It is a one-party Marxist-Leninist regime, and consistently
violates the Helsinki Accords, the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, and other agreements which it has signed. It just doesn't
violate them as often or as severely as some others.
(I don't have any of my references on human rights here at work. If
you want information instead of just sources, send me mail. I'd be
happy to send it to you.)
charli
Rick McGeer
This is an interesting notion. Taxation is theft, and income redistribution is
the distribution of stolen goods. Never before have I heard that the receiver
of stolen property enjoys any property right in those goods, especially when,
as in this case, the receivers are in fact conspirators before and during the
act of theft.
As a practical matter, you are correct: people who receive welfare, and those
who receive the non-welfare transfer payments which are subsidies to the middle
class (Social Security, Student Loans and subsidized services such as public
universities) perceive a property right therein and will not countenance
their removal. It is this obduracy and illusion which underlies many of our
current domestic problems, from the deficit through the various agonies of
public education. Informed discussions, however, require clear reasoning and
moral accuracy. One has no property right in goods stolen from others, it
is not social engineering to demand that the social engineers stop tinkering,
and it is hardly a radical reform to ask that those who engage in systematic
theft please stop.
Now, if we demanded that the last socialist be hung from the entrails of the
last tax collector ---
well, now that would be a radical, if beneficial, reform.
-- Rick.
Riel Smit
>
>As far as Eastern Bloc countries go, Yugoslavia is bad, but not by
>any means the worst. It allows more rights and liberties than, say,
>Romania or Czechoslovakia, but is more repressive than East Germany
>or Poland. It is a one-party Marxist-Leninist regime, and consistently
>violates the Helsinki Accords, the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human
>Rights, and other agreements which it has signed. It just doesn't
>violate them as often or as severely as some others.
>
In the light of the above (which is not new to me), and similar statements
that can be made about a large proportion of African (and other third
world) countries, can someone please explain why South Africa is singled
out for the kind of treatment it gets? I'm not necessarily saying they
(SA) should not be getting the treatment, I just want to hear peolpe
explain why they do not become rabid over these other countries the way
they do over South Africa. Why, sporting ties, investments, and what have
you go on with hardly a whisper (and definitely nothing more than a
whisper).
l...@teddy.uucp
>>
>>Does anyone on the net have
>>any easily verifiable facts/opinions regarding the status of [human] rights
>>in the State of Yugoslavia?
>>Norm Andrews
>
>any means the worst. It allows more rights and liberties than, say,
>Romania or Czechoslovakia, but is more repressive than East Germany
>or Poland. It is a one-party Marxist-Leninist regime, and consistently
>violates the Helsinki Accords, the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human
>Rights, and other agreements which it has signed. It just doesn't
>violate them as often or as severely as some others.
>
>(I don't have any of my references on human rights here at work. If
>you want information instead of just sources, send me mail. I'd be
>happy to send it to you.)
>
> charli
I'm skeptical of this synopsis of human rights in yugoslavia.
First of all, Yugoslavia is NOT a member of the "Eastern Bloc".
The Eastern Bloc refers to the Warsaw pact., which
yugoslavia is not a member of. Yugoslavia is NOT ALLIED WITH THE SOVIET UNION.
Many other things about Yugoslavia differentiate it from Warsaw pact regimes:
- It has a rotating presidency, and there is no leadership cult.
- Citizens are generally free to travel abroad.
- It is not Marxist-Leninist, at least if you consider the USSR to be the
prototype for Marism-Leninism. The economy is DECENTRALIZED, and
workers have a significant say in the way that factories are run.
I don't know what criterion you are using to compare it to East Germany, but
it certainly doesn't need a wall to keep its citizens there.
There is also some non-trivial amount of press freedom there.
There are cases of political dissidents being put on trial in Yugoslavia,
but these are rare, and the sentences are generally much more lenient
than in Soviet Bloc countries.
--
Sport Death,
Larry Kolodney
(USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk
(INTERNET) l...@mit-mc.arpa
Piotr Berman
> the distribution of stolen goods. Never before have I heard that the receiver
> of stolen property enjoys any property right in those goods, especially when,
> as in this case, the receivers are in fact conspirators before and during the
> act of theft.
>
> As a practical matter, you are correct: people who receive welfare, and those
> who receive the non-welfare transfer payments which are subsidies to the middle
> class (Social Security, Student Loans and subsidized services such as public
> universities) perceive a property right therein and will not countenance
> their removal. It is this obduracy and illusion which underlies many of our
> current domestic problems, from the deficit through the various agonies of
> public education. Informed discussions, however, require clear reasoning and
> moral accuracy. One has no property right in goods stolen from others, it
> is not social engineering to demand that the social engineers stop tinkering,
> and it is hardly a radical reform to ask that those who engage in systematic
> theft please stop.
>
> Now, if we demanded that the last socialist be hung from the entrails of the
> last tax collector ---
>
> well, now that would be a radical, if beneficial, reform.
>
> -- Rick.
Saying that taxation is theft has as much sence as saying that property
s theft. Both statement state opposition to historically evolved social
institutions. The notion of property is by no means absolute. The only
absolute value is survival. All others are aquired by humans in the
process of societal development (as opposed to biological evolution).
Thus property, liberty, marriage, parental duties etc. are meaningful
only in the context of a given society.
Historically, taxation was earlier then property in capitalistic sence.
Of course, earlier does not imply better. It does not imply worse either.
I can listen to arguments that taxation should be minimal, as to maximize
the scope of self-regulatory market mechanism. I do not agree with that,
but this is a matter of some rational argument + rational value judgments.
However a claim that taxation is theft is beyond the scope of rationality.
Even "nigth watchman" state requires some taxes to supports its necessary
functions. For some period the only federal taxes in USA were customs,
which is a form of sales tax. Still, there were internal revenues supporting
necessary functions of state and local goverments, plus public lands (like
Central Park in NYC or Boston Commons).
I do not know wheter the "taxation is theft" argument belongs to
net.politics.invectives or net.politics.slogans, but surely not in
net.politics.theory. If you want to have a minimal state, provide
arguments (I could think of efficiency, soundness of checks and balances etc.)
examples, case studies but do not call all others habitual thiefs.
The purpose of your letter is to express your emotions. The purpose of
theory is study facts, generalize and predict.
***************************************************************
* *
* In a fit of pessimism I envisioned Rick muttering: *
* I found out that you sleal, I generalize that you are *
* a thief and I predict that you will be a thief. *
* *
***************************************************************
Documentation
> income redistribution is the distribution of stolen goods.
> Never before have I heard that the receiver of stolen
> property enjoys any property right in those goods,
> especially when, as in this case, the receivers are in
> fact conspirators before and during the act of theft.
> As a practical matter, you are correct: people who receive
> welfare, and those who receive the non-welfare transfer
> payments which are subsidies to the middle class (Social
> Security, Student Loans and subsidized services such as
> public universities) perceive a property right therein and
> will not countenance their removal. It is this obduracy
> and illusion which underlies many of our current domestic
> problems, from the deficit through the various agonies of
> public education. Informed discussions, however, require
> clear reasoning and moral accuracy. One has no property
> right in goods stolen from others, it is not social
> engineering to demand that the social engineers stop
> tinkering, and it is hardly a radical reform to ask that
> those who engage in systematic theft please stop. Now,
> if we demanded that the last socialist be hung from the
> entrails of the last tax collector --- well, now that
> would be a radical, if beneficial, reform. -- Rick.
Well, Rick, that's all fine and good....but, first of all,
you're confusing legal norms with political rhetoric. For
one thing, taxation is not theft. Any society has certain
communal functions, paid for by the group (such as
defense). You enjoy mutual reciprocal benefits from this
arrangement (i.e. you don't have to defend your vital
American interests down in Nicaragua - somebody else is
paid for that ;-)). Now, I suppose if you're shouting to
a crowd on a street corner that "Taxation is theft", you
can expect some rousing cheers, and such, but that doesn't
make it so. Your further assertion that people cannot have
property rights in stolen goods is equally simplistic.
However YOU choose define concepts like "property", "stolen
goods", "theft", etc., the fact remains that these concepts
have been evolving and developing for 2000 years or so into
their present form - hence, the current political reality
is that Libertaria is gonna piss off an awful lot of folks.
Now then, your comments quoted above were a response to
someone else, who only raised the question of how do you
deal with current political realities, other than through
force. The only suggestion I saw in your response is that we
non-libertarians have only to wake-up, and put aside the
illusions and lies. Well, shucks, I can't do that, not
until I see something more concrete than street-corner
slogans like "Taxation is theft!". To put it another way,
try convincing me, instead of yelling at me. I'm much
easier to persuade that way.
Joel Gilman @Motorola/Computer X, Inc. Seattle
J Storrs Hall
>>>Tony Wuersch
>>
>>You don't believe in people. You believe in the dehumanizing State.
>>--JoSH
>
(mmt:)
>... The USA, generally
>speaking, is probably the country that most strongly advocates freedom
>of economic choice.
Try Switzerland, or Hong Kong, or Singapore, or Taiwan, or Japan.
> It also seems to be the country that breeds people
>who fanatically distrust state activities. ...
>People [in Europe], do NOT seem to want to move to a more libertarian
>condition.
I know quite a few Europeans who came here to live permanently, on their
own. The only Americans I know who went to live in Europe had married
someone who already lived there; there were few of them, and NO ONE
went to Eastern Europe. But I number several ex-Eastern Europeans
among my friends, and most of them have an opinion of (Eastern European)
governments that you apparently just don't want to believe.
>Is this because they are brainwashed and cannot see where their own
>interests lie (No, of course not: Libertarians deny this possibility),
There are two lies here.
>or is it because their situation is preferable to the more laissez-faire
>conditions here? Perhaps ease of cooperation, based on social and
>governmental structures, outweighs the *feeling* of freedom that would
>be available to a few people in a Libertaria.
Perhaps the barbed-wire fences, the machine-gun-toting police, the
ubiquitous monitoring and censorship of all means of communication,
the necessity of saying the "right thing", outweigh the hopeless
yearning for a little freedom, a little human dignity.
>To parallel JoSH's peroration:
>>I do believe in people. I believe in the humanizing State.
>> ...
This is really senseless. Forcing someone to do something at the
point of a gun, which would be compassionate if done voluntarily,
is humanizing neither to the forcer or the forcee. Loading a
monster bureaucracy with millions (literally) of regulations
onto people does not make them better, more caring human beings;
it makes them jobholders, warmbodies, interchangeable cogs in
a soulless machine. Show me a humanizing State and I'll show you
a square circle.
>I believe that JoSH's Libertaria would lead directly to all the
>things he claims not to believe in.
>Martin Taylor
I not only believe that socialist snake oil will destroy those
human values that Martin claimed to believe in, but I can point to
half the world where people are living in physical squalor and
poverty, and worse, bereft of spirit, initiative, and hope; where
millions have been murdered in the name of economic equality, and
the wretched survivors envy the dead. No thanks, Martin, you can
keep your utopia and your precious illusions about how well the
people like it. I'm a simple soul; I haven't progressed beyond
either freedom or dignity, and I guess I'm just unable to grasp
why you think slavery is such hot stuff.
--JoSH
Piotr Berman
> >>>... I'd rather believe in people than believe in libertaria anytime.
> >>>Tony Wuersch
> >>
> >>You don't believe in people. You believe in the dehumanizing State.
> >> ...
> >>--JoSH
> >
> (mmt:)
> >... The USA, generally
> >speaking, is probably the country that most strongly advocates freedom
> >of economic choice.
>
> Try Switzerland, or Hong Kong, or Singapore, or Taiwan, or Japan.
>
> > It also seems to be the country that breeds people
> >who fanatically distrust state activities. ...
> >People [in Europe], do NOT seem to want to move to a more libertarian
> >condition.
>
> I know quite a few Europeans who came here to live permanently, on their
> own. The only Americans I know who went to live in Europe had married
> someone who already lived there; there were few of them, and NO ONE
> went to Eastern Europe. But I number several ex-Eastern Europeans
> among my friends, and most of them have an opinion of (Eastern European)
> governments that you apparently just don't want to believe.
> Perhaps the barbed-wire fences, the machine-gun-toting police, the
> ubiquitous monitoring and censorship of all means of communication,
> the necessity of saying the "right thing", outweigh the hopeless
> yearning for a little freedom, a little human dignity.
>
Over there state has much larger role in the economy than in US. States
run health service, railroads, most of utilities and MUCH MORE.
Although there some trends for returning certain industries back to
privite sector, no political party proposes to reduce the government
involvement in the economy to US level.
Of course, there are libertarians in Europe. For example, I attended
a privite libertarian seminar back in Poland (among "barbed-wire fences").
But those are few. There was one quite powerful movement in Danmark, but
now it is fading.
As far as migrations are concerned, there are Americans working in West
Europe and West Europeans working here. Most of them eventually return to
their home countries.
JoSH loves to equate non-libertarians with communists. He claims that
liberals believe in slavery. But since Canada of France do not look
sufficiently "dehumanized", he jumps at once to Eastern Europe.
Piotr Berman
Mike Huybensz
> This is really senseless. Forcing someone to do something at the
> point of a gun, which would be compassionate if done voluntarily,
> is humanizing neither to the forcer or the forcee. Loading a
> monster bureaucracy with millions (literally) of regulations
> onto people does not make them better, more caring human beings;
> it makes them jobholders, warmbodies, interchangeable cogs in
> a soulless machine. Show me a humanizing State and I'll show you
> a square circle.
[Oh boy, a rhetoric contest! My turn to counter-flame!]
It makes them fed, healthy, housed jobholders who can provide the soul
of the machine they create. But I suppose Josh thinks it better that they
starve, sicken, freeze, and sit impotent and idle to develop qualities that
Josh certainly hasn't, if he wishes that fate upon them. Show me a
libertarian state, and I'll show you economic feudalism, where Josh and
his ilk think they can get into the middle and upper levels.
> I not only believe that socialist snake oil will destroy those
> human values that Martin claimed to believe in, but I can point to
> half the world where people are living in physical squalor and
> poverty, and worse, bereft of spirit, initiative, and hope;
A gross exaggeration of the effects of socialism. And why would these
human values exist at all in libertaria? Where a Scrooge-like economic
upper class would quickly ammass the vast majority of the wealth,
leaving the masses to their "merciful" whims?
> where millions have been murdered in the name of economic equality, and
> the wretched survivors envy the dead.
Tell me of the millions killed in the name of economic equality in western
European socialist countries.
> No thanks, Martin, you can
> keep your utopia and your precious illusions about how well the
> people like it. I'm a simple soul; I haven't progressed beyond
> either freedom or dignity, and I guess I'm just unable to grasp
> why you think slavery is such hot stuff.
It seems you haven't progressed beyond freedom or dignity because you
still don't understand them. You seem to think your freedom to climb
to the top of the economic heap is worth being able to trample on the
backs of others, whom you'll freely grant the freedom to starve.
(Paraphrase) How noble libertarianism, in it's majestic equality, that
both rich and poor are equally prohibited from peeing in the privately
owned streets (without paying), sleeping under the privately owned
bridges (without paying), and coercing bread from its rightful owners!
[End of sarcasm and rhetoric. Phew. Good thing I don't do this too often.]
--
Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
J Storrs Hall
[Replying to Rick McGeer]
> Saying that taxation is theft has as much sence as saying that property
>s theft. Both statement state opposition to historically evolved social
>institutions.
As near as I can figure this out, you are saying "it doesn't make sense
to say that the government is stealing because it has been doing so
for a long time".
> The notion of property is by no means absolute. ...
Is this supposed to mean that there is no such thing as theft?
> I do not know wheter the "taxation is theft" argument belongs to
>net.politics.invectives or net.politics.slogans, but surely not in
>net.politics.theory. If you want to have a minimal state, provide
>arguments,... case studies but do not call all others habitual thiefs.
>The purpose of your letter is to express your emotions. The purpose of
>theory is study facts, generalize and predict.
You have forgotten the statement Rick was addressing, namely that the
recipients of government payments "owned" them. The question of whether
it would be right to stop the payments depends critically on whether
they are theft in the first place--so this outburst is somewhat
misplaced.
--JoSH
Rick McGeer
> Saying that taxation is theft has as much sence as saying that property
>s theft.
A man walks up to you with a loaded gun and demands that you give him some
large percentage of your paycheque, after first revealing to him as many details
of your life as he cares to know. If you refuse, he locks you in a cell for
a long time.
Is this theft? No, of course not.
It's extortion.
>Both statement state opposition to historically evolved social
>institutions. The notion of property is by no means absolute. The only
>absolute value is survival. All others are aquired by humans in the
>process of societal development (as opposed to biological evolution).
>Thus property, liberty, marriage, parental duties etc. are meaningful
>only in the context of a given society.
This is the usual blather of a statist justifying outrages upon any or all
of the institutions of property, marriage or liberty, or at least upon
the enjoyment of those institutions by somebody else. Bull. "Man is endowed
with certain Rights by his Creator..." Some of us still believe that.
> Historically, taxation was earlier then property in capitalistic sence.
>Of course, earlier does not imply better. It does not imply worse either.
Come off it. When our mutual ancient ancestor first swacked a peer over
the antelope he'd bagged, that was property. If you're claiming that the
state's right to tax precedes a human's right to property, well, I'm not
really prepared to accept that.
>I can listen to arguments that taxation should be minimal, as to maximize
>the scope of self-regulatory market mechanism. I do not agree with that,
>but this is a matter of some rational argument + rational value judgments.
Uh-uh, that it is not. I have yet to see any example in history where the state
outperformed the market in any field save the destruction of wealth.
> However a claim that taxation is theft is beyond the scope of rationality.
>Even "nigth watchman" state requires some taxes to supports its necessary
>functions. For some period the only federal taxes in USA were customs,
>which is a form of sales tax. Still, there were internal revenues supporting
>necessary functions of state and local goverments, plus public lands (like
>Central Park in NYC or Boston Commons).
Fortunately for your argument, both the Boston Common and Central Park are
well-policed, wholesome, clean, crime-free areas.
More seriously, the great thing about local and state taxes is that you don't
have to put up with them. You can leave. Market forces then nail the
localities that insist upon gouging their citizens for nitwit federal programs.
Southeastern Pennsylvania is now crowded with people that work in Delaware.
New York City paid for its high-tax socialist folly by going bankrupt in the
'70s. But Washington? They can gouge us forever.
> I do not know wheter the "taxation is theft" argument belongs to
>net.politics.invectives or net.politics.slogans, but surely not in
>net.politics.theory. If you want to have a minimal state, provide
>arguments (I could think of efficiency, soundness of checks and balances etc.)
>examples, case studies but do not call all others habitual thiefs.
>The purpose of your letter is to express your emotions. The purpose of
>theory is study facts, generalize and predict.
If the socialists ever looked at the facts, socialism would have died its
well-deserved death 30 years ago, after Atlee's Labour government had succeeded
in impoverishing Britain despite the Marshall Plan. Instead, my daily
newspaper and this newgroup are filled with the mindless rantings of those who
crucify the fact of socialism's abysmal failings on the same cross they have
reserved for human liberty.
Socialism delenda est,
-- Rick.
>***************************************************************
>* *
>* In a fit of pessimism I envisioned Rick muttering: *
>* I found out that you sleal, I generalize that you are *
>* a thief and I predict that you will be a thief. *
>* *
>***************************************************************
No. I found out that you believe in socialism, I generalize that you believe
in other fantasies as well and I predict that I can sell you a bridge.
Mike Huybensz
> > Saying that taxation is theft has as much sence as saying that property
> >institutions.
>
> to say that the government is stealing because it has been doing so
> for a long time".
Let's rephrase it into libertarian terms. You are free to remain within or
leave the social contract agreed to by you by your residency in the US.
Paying taxes is merely your fullfilment of your side of the contract.
The government has the right to enforce the contract you have both
freely entered into and continually renewed.
There is enough choice of governments in this world for you to take your
pick in a more-or-less free market. To claim that there is no libertarian
government for you to choose from stirs me about as much as arguments
from breathe-airians (people who are trying to reduce food intake to the
point where they can subsist solely on air. They do actually exist....)
--
Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
n...@inmet.uucp
>/* Written 10:28 am Aug 19, 1985 by pedsgd!bob in inmet:net.politics.t */
>Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ
>Keywords:
>
>>
>>
>>If you want a lot of evidence for this, I suggest you read Charles
>>Murray's "Losing Ground". In brief, the welfare state has harmed those
>
>"The Making of the President 1972" claims that the average income for
>blacks rose dramtically under the Great Society. I can ferret out the
>exact numbers if you want. Apparently they came from the 1970 census,
>but its hard to tell. On the down side, the number of broken homes
>also rose dramatically.
I'd be very interested in precisely what is claimed. Take a look at
page 62 of Murray's book -- a graph there shows a steep plunge in
poverty for "blacks & others" (non-whites) from 1960-1970, and then
an erratic hovering around 30% from 1970-1980.
>
>>The abolition of coercion need not make people more generous -- to
>>spend $1 on a poor person, the Federal government must take in
>>$5. A private agency need take in only about $1.10. Remember, we're
>
>Just curious, but what is the source for this?
These figures and others were published on the net some time ago. (Sorry,
I've forgotten who posted them -- whoever did, please re-post with
references).
I'm pretty sure the private charity one is roughly correct (it was $1.13 for
United Way in Cleveland when I did a story on them for an in-house newspaper),
and it isn't obviously out of line for a government that must investigate
the people it's paying to, tax the people it's grabbing from, and spend on
the people who are doing all the paying and grabbing.
n...@inmet.uucp
>/* Written 5:50 pm Aug 17, 1985 by ubvax!tonyw in inmet:net.politics.t */
>In article <2820...@inmet.UUCP> n...@inmet.UUCP writes
>>>filling a job a manageable task for most jobs, by helping to ensure
>>>that the number of "qualified" applicants for a job match the number
>>>of jobs more or less.
>>>It also makes filling a job a less risky
>>>procedure, since applicants have accumulated a record which can
>>>be compared with other records even before the first job.
>>
>>A peculiar stance, given that the colleges and private high
>>schools depend on private achievement tests.....
>>
>
>Again here, private achievement tests have nothing to do with jobs. They
>react to the failure of high school or elementary schools to generate
>decent credentials -- a failure of the American system of local rule
>over high school and elementary education which systems following
>national educational standards don't share.
In other words, if the state provides such a service, the market need
not. This is news? There's nothing here to suggest that the "national
educational standards" are better than standardized tests, and if you
want diversity in your educational system, I would think that the
standardized test route (public or private) would be the way to go.
>The solution here is stricter national standards, not looser ones.
>And personnel departments don't look at ETS results, anyway.
They don't have to -- the people with poor ETS scores had less of
a chance to attain the credentials that the personnel departments
DO look at, and the ETS info would be old anyhow. On the other hand,
perhaps you have heard of the "Institute for the Certification of
Computer Professionals"?
>>>Of course, the value of a credentialing system depends on the level
>>>of publicity, the level of enforcement, and the level of agreement
>>>on the value of particular credentials. Hence, since the best
>>>guarantor of publicity, enforcement, and agreement between credentials
>>>is a public regulatory authority,
>>
>>Support please.
>>
>
>I assume you agree with the first sentence. As far as the second goes,
>I think of a credentialing scheme like a security setup. The most
>secure setups are where an outside, central agency takes charge of
>security and makes sure that all sub-central security arrangements
>are consistent, so that the system as a whole is secure against hostile
>entry. And where everyone knows the rules. The same rules which
>maintain secure environments are the rules which maintain consistent
>credentialing systems.
>
No support here for the notion that the state must administer such
a system -- the "outside, central agency" need not be public at
all (ETS isn't). Indeed, public agencies have the problem of being
under government pressure to pump the scores up. Private agencies
are presumably a little more resistant.
>The only central agency in a state which has coercive powers over
>people within the state is the state.
AHA! Here's the core of what I believe to be your error. There is
no need for such an agency to be coercive. None.
>So it has a role if a social
>goal is that educational credentials should be secure and consistent.
Why? If I tell you that my name is "Nat Howard" and can get you to
agree with me that much, and then we make a joint call to a private
credentialing service that you trust, you will be convinced that I
have a given credential if they say I do.
Of course, you may elect not to trust the private agency, feeling that
a public one would be more trustworthy. If so, you've fallen into the
bad mistake of believing that public officials are less corrupt
than private ones.
>>>on the value of particular credentials. Hence, since the best
>>>guarantor of publicity, enforcement, and agreement between credentials
>>>is a public regulatory authority,
>>>and because people outside the
>>>educational system disturb the system of credentials,
>>
>>Support for the implication that the impact that outsiders have
>>is "distortion" and not "adjustment to reality", please.
>>
>
>The debate over affirmative action. Anyone who gets benefited by
>affirmative action is assumed to be distorting the system because
>they didn't obtain the necessary credentials, or their credentials
>were watered down and inflated compared to similar credentials held
>by others. These people are outsiders because they break the rules
>relating credentials to jobs. Now, if you believe that affirmative
>action is adjustment to reality, then I have no argument with you.
>
By "outsiders", I meant the people outside the testing system who
exert pressure to modify testing criteria. Not the beneficiaries
of such modification. Indeed, making a government agency be the
arbiter of such things means that testing criteria MUST be influenced
by politics. A private agency faces ruin if it's credentials are
shown to be fraudulent. Not so a government agency. A private agency
also faces ruin if its credentials are shown to be unattached to
reality. This is also not so true of a federal agency. In short,
the forces that act on a private agency tend to make the credentials
reflect reality more closely. The pressures on a public agency reflect
the degree of power and interest held by pressure groups, some of whom
would benefit from certain changes.
Nice try, by the way, with affirmative action, but we're discussing
credentialing agencies, not criteria that are supposed to be
important for choosing among people of equal credentials. Or do
I misunderstand AA? Or am I missing your point?
>>>the place
>>>for education is in the public sphere, and education should be
>>>subsidized and regulated by a public authority.
>>
>>Given a false premise, it's possible to prove anything. Please back
>>yours up.
>
>I'm guessing here as to what you think is the false premise. Maybe
>you could tell me in some reply or future article.
The false premise is that coercion is needed to have a good credentialing
agency. As near as I can tell that is your only reason for thinking the
government should run such an agency.
Martin Taylor
libertarian posters to this net whose writing is valuable and forces one
to rethink various positions. But your postings must be an embarrassment
to them.
You seem to have this beautiful fantasy of people freely cooperating,
to everyone's benefit, and another fantasy of murderous Socialism,
and when anyone brings up comments on the way the world really is,
you go crazy. Thinking, as was (presumably) obvious from context,
of countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France, Britain ...,
I said that the people there seem less inclined toward libertarianism
than are people here. (As support for this view, one major reason for
the European cancellation of net.politics, I am told, was the mass
of libertarian garbage). In response, what do you write? Here is some
of it:
>I know quite a few Europeans who came here to live permanently, on their
>own. The only Americans I know who went to live in Europe had married
>someone who already lived there; there were few of them, and NO ONE
>went to Eastern Europe. But I number several ex-Eastern Europeans
>among my friends, and most of them have an opinion of (Eastern European)
>governments that you apparently just don't want to believe.
>
(I know quite a few Americans living in Europe.)
>>Is this because they are brainwashed and cannot see where their own
>>interests lie (No, of course not: Libertarians deny this possibility),
>
>There are two lies here.
How can there be two lies with only one statement; in defence of that
statement, there have been several arguments in this group with libertarians
arguing that the only person who knows where someone's interests lie
is that person, who is always the best judge. I am glad to see that
you, JoSH, dissociate yourself from that position, because if it fails,
most of the libertarian rhetoric fails with it.
>
>>or is it because their situation is preferable to the more laissez-faire
>>conditions here? Perhaps ease of cooperation, based on social and
>>governmental structures, outweighs the *feeling* of freedom that would
>>be available to a few people in a Libertaria.
>
>Perhaps the barbed-wire fences, the machine-gun-toting police, the
>ubiquitous monitoring and censorship of all means of communication,
>the necessity of saying the "right thing", outweigh the hopeless
>yearning for a little freedom, a little human dignity.
>
and
>>To parallel JoSH's peroration:
>>I do believe in people. I believe in the humanizing State.
>> ...
>
>This is really senseless. Forcing someone to do something at the
>point of a gun, which would be compassionate if done voluntarily,
>is humanizing neither to the forcer or the forcee. Loading a
>monster bureaucracy with millions (literally) of regulations
>onto people does not make them better, more caring human beings;
>it makes them jobholders, warmbodies, interchangeable cogs in
>a soulless machine. Show me a humanizing State and I'll show you
>a square circle.
>
>>I believe that JoSH's Libertaria would lead directly to all the
>>things he claims not to believe in.
>>Martin Taylor
>
>I not only believe that socialist snake oil will destroy those
>human values that Martin claimed to believe in, but I can point to
>half the world where people are living in physical squalor and
>poverty, and worse, bereft of spirit, initiative, and hope; where
>millions have been murdered in the name of economic equality, and
>the wretched survivors envy the dead.
Let's consider Sweden. Does this picture remind you of a country
with few natural resources other then forests, a country of high
living standards and technological competence, a country under
Socialist governments for several decades?
Let's consider Denmark. Does this picture remind you of a country
with appreciably more day-to-day personal freedom than the US or Canada,
a country that allows (perhaps encourages to some degree) the anarchism
of a Christiania, a country of even fewer resources than Sweden (other
than fish)? How many Danes or Swedes do you know that have escaped
the barbed wire fences and the machine-gun toting police?
Yes, I have spent a good deal of time in Denmark. I know how proud they
are of having, a century ago, introduced the idea of publicly supported
housing for the indigent. I know how they help pay the mortgages for
homeowners temporarily unemployed (this being cheaper than keeping them
once they are put on the street by a foreclosing banker). I know how
Christiania worked, how it went from its initial anarchist condition
into a democratic cooperative paying taxes (yes, taxes) to Copenhagen.
JoSH, please restrict your postings to net.bizarre, or to your own
playground on fa.politics.
n...@inmet.uucp
>/* Written 6:33 pm Aug 17, 1985 by ubvax!tonyw in inmet:net.politics.t */
>/* ---------- "Re: Charity in Libertaria vs. a goo" ---------- */
>In article <2820...@inmet.UUCP> n...@inmet.UUCP writes:
>>
>>(Tony Wuersch)
>>>/* ---------- "Re: Newsflash! [Subsidized Educatio" ---------- */
>>>
>>>But is it true that the poor
>>>and down-and-out do better from private charity than from the modern
>>>welfare state? Why should the abolition of "coercion" make people
>>>any more generous? Why should the absence of any health standards,
>>>for instance, which poor people should fulfill (food in the right
>>>quantities, minimum shelter, etc.) aid the poor in meeting these
>>>standards?
>>
>>If you want a lot of evidence for this, I suggest you read Charles
>>Murray's "Losing Ground". In brief, the welfare state has harmed those
>>it wished to help, and so far (a social-worker friend tells me) the best
>>that any liberal publication has been able to do is grumble that maybe
>>things would have been even worse if the welfare state hadn't been around.
>>A pretty weak argument from those who have stolen billions of dollars
>>ostensibly to help.
>
>I'm glad you say "evidence" and not "good evidence". The best the New
>Republic did (and it's not entirely a liberal publication) was to smash
>the data used in "Losing Ground" to pieces. Its data was selective at its
>worst -- the worst cities in the worst years, and the worst groups.
Excuse me, but I haven't read the article. I'm surprised, though -- surely
the policies in question are worth testing at their worst? Not to do so
is like saying that a ship's hull is "on average" watertight. I am
curious, though, just which data were called "selective", and whether the
selections were deceptive (as you seem to imply by saying "selective at its
worst"). By the way, who's contention is it that the data used were
"smashed to pieces"? If it's yours, and you've the same knowledge of
data that you seem to display with regard to kidney problems, below,
then I invite you to apologize for voicing any opinion.
>>The abolition of coercion need not make people more generous -- to
>>spend $1 on a poor person, the Federal government must take in
>>$5. A private agency need take in only about $1.10. Remember, we're
>>talking about a society in which anybody could take people on
>>taxi rides, cut their hair, or do social work without certification
>>from the state or fear that the state might shut them down without
>>certification from a union, so some proportion of the poor who don't
>>have jobs now would have jobs in libertaria.
>
>A private agency need take in only about $1.10 because it has no
>obligation to help everybody. It only has to help people who make it
>easy to be helped.
I can just see next year's United Way campaign slogan -- "We do the EASY
ones!" I invite examples of charities that help only those who make it
easy.
Of course, some people do not WANT to be helped -- the government may
come along and imprison them for life regardless of what they want, for
their own good. What to do about people who do not desire treatment is
an interesting question, of course, well worth separate consideration,
but very briefly, I oppose coercion of anyone not initiating force or
fraud, and forced psychiatric treatment of anybody. Short of that, what
private charities have refused to help reluctant or nasty people?
Of COURSE the government gets certain hard problems, just as the USPS
probably gets most of the mail destined for Rural Free Delivery areas. Why?
Because the government subsidizes RFD. To argue that there'd be no
charity for the "hard-to-help" in Libertaria is like arguing that there'd
be no mail for those living in the countryside. It's nonsense.
If the government didn't do it, those concerned with the problem would.
This would include the relatives of the schizophrenics, the manic-depressives,
those affected by literature on the subject, those victimized directly or
indirectly, by the illness who have recovered, and those who, like
yourself, I'm sure, are concerned with public welfare in general.
>People who make it hard to be helped get dumped
>on the government. In Libertaria, people who make it hard to be
>helped, schizophrenics being the most notable case (and there are
>MILLIONS of them around, some of whom I know), still would be turned
>away by private agencies.
Oh lovely! I can just see "Sixty Minutes (Libertaria Edition)"
doing a story on that. End of funding for that bunch of hard-nosed
nasties, right? Who would give to the folks that turned away
people they said they'd help? On the other hand, if a government
bureau does the same thing, does its funding get cut? Well.... no.
>Remember, the criteria for success for
>private agencies tends to be the number of bodies they end up helping.
>Any body that makes life hard on them would reduce the "success" rate.
Nobody would expect the "Rich Rosen Halfway House For the Violently
Flaming" to have the same "success" rate as the "Professor Moriarty
Clinic for Those With Mild Indigestion From the Net". Yet both causes
would attract funding. What's that? Not the sort of funding you desire?
Why bless you, Fella, that's the POINT of Libertaria! Richard Carnes
doesn't get to choose how much money would be donated. Nat Howard doesn't
get to choose it. JoSH doesn't get to choose it. The people who GIVE
get to choose it. Right now, those people do NOT have a choice regarding
(say) welfare. People who would put such things in the hands of the state
deny it to them.
Is it a shame that AIDS funding is too low? Give them a few bucks. Is
it too bad that the Society for Debating Unsettle-able Things gets so
much? Specify on your United Way card that you don't want any of your
money sent there. Right now, the SDUT people have the assistance of
people who can attach your paycheck to get funding.
>>Of course, if you REALLY think that people a libertarian society would
>>be less generous, you should bear in mind that you are saying that
>>people tend to give less than a fifth voluntarily than they do under
>>coercion, and that the poor have not been denied reasonable jobs
>>by such things as minimum wage laws and licensure. Not a tenable
>>position. You're also assuming that a large number of people will
>>need charity -- remember Daniel Mck.'s very well-defended discussion
>>of unemployment in libertaria.
>
>Again, there are millions of schizophrenics who don't have to live in
>institutions. I don't remember Daniel's discussion. And I really
>think people in a libertarian society would be as generous as other
>people with similar after-tax incomes today. That sounds reasonable
>to me. And I don't think most people I know are very generous.
Go just a step further. Supply AND demand, remember? In our society,
the Supply of money is limited by taxation. Demand for private funding
is ALSO limited -- the government is assumed to be "doing something"
(and it is, mostly inefficiently) and is put in charge of anything
regarded as a public health emergency. In a libertarian society,
the SUPPLY of money is greater (your after-tax income is raised to
match your pre-tax income) and the DEMAND for those funds from
private charities is larger. Why? Because the private charities have
not been subsidized. They have stronger cases that the funds are
needed, and needed locally. They also can do their part more efficiently.
>>The reason that the absence of health standards would help the poor to
>>meet those the real standards of health is that the existence of a
>>standard in law merely imposes a penalty for not meeting the standard
>>("we arrest you because these houses you built are too small, or because
>>the food you provide is too meager") but doesn't accomplish any increase
>>in the amount of housing or food provided. In other words, making it
>>illegal to serve inferior food doesn't make it a requirement to serve
>>good food.
>
>Not true at the federal level. Courts can look at the intent of
>legislation, and frequently do, to guarantee that compliance with the
>law does not mean violation of the intent of a law. Also often not
>true at the state level. Often true at the local level.
Not true at the federal level, eh? That's not the experience of
one lawyer who used to work for the Department of the Interior:
"But Popeo, the son of a working-class family, was offended by his cases
at Interior. Handed the responsibility for enforcing health and safety
regulations often capricious and petty in nature, he found that his
opponents in court were often struggling entrepreneurs. The last straw,
Popeo related in a recent interview, was when he found himself seeking a
court injunction to 'close down a one-man mine operation because the
owner didn't have a two-way radio to talk to himself, or a stretcher to carry
himself out of the mine if injured.'". [Reason Magazine, Sept., 1985, pp 48].
>>An example? Why sure! Just take a look at the abandonment rate of
>>buildings under rent control in New York city. If you'd rather not
>>look it up, just take a cab through Harlem sometime. Those buildings
>>with the metal sheets blocking the windows are examples.
>
>Local problem -- the problem with housing policy is that it's defined
>as a local problem, so people who want to cheat on a local law can
>just move out or transfer their investment assets. Landlords should
>be forced to keep reserves for maintenance of buildings at all times
>as national policy, enforced by the FBI. Otherwise their buildings
>go up for sale IMMEDIATELY.
How nice! You would create an enormous federal agency to do this
(think about it for five minutes) and the result would be? The landlords
would sell or not sell their buildings. Rents would go up or not go up.
If they didn't go up (presumably because landlords were not allowed
to pass on increases in federal taxes and depreciation on the
"reserves" (how would you reserve handymen, anyhow?) buildings would
be abandoned, and left to rot. Remember -- nobody forces them to be
in the landlord business, and you, oh Gentle One, have just argued that
their assets should be seized at gunpoint if a bureaucrat in Washington
says so. Of course, perhaps the increases could be passed on, forcing
many of those on marginal incomes out into the streets. Nice going,
oh Arbiter of Real Estate. Perhaps you should just come out and
advocate socialized housing, as they have in Moscow (which has
a terrific crunch in housing, by the way, and regulates people's
moving).
Thanks, but I wouldn't want the rest of Manhattan filled
with rotting buildings and condos because of the irrational fears
of the uninformed.
For example, your argument that local enforcement makes it
possible for landlords to transfer their assets elsewhere, this is
a new low in feeble-mindedness. Those buildings are ABANDONED (read my
lips) the landlord has given up on them. He has not sold them to
anyone, nor gotten any "assets" out of them. He has discovered that
(say) buying tax-free bonds offers him a better income than keeping
up a building that costs more to keep up than he collects in rent.
>>Another example? Certainly. Kidney machines are rationed and
>>subsidized by the government. There has been relatively little research
>>on improving these machines because the whole thing is pretty closely
>>regulated, there have also been pretty severe limits placed on access to
>>those machines. For details, see Reason Magazine, August 1984.
>
>Boy, you're in a mess on this one. Government pays for kidney maintenance
>because most kidney disease sufferers can't afford dialysis. So the
>government created the market for kidney machines in the first place,
>by making current technology affordable.
>
Tsk! When you go to the doctor, how much of the bill do you pay?
I generally pay $1, because I have health insurance. Was the insurance
federally subsidized? Nope, not as far as I can tell (modulo, of course,
the ever-present tax arguments by which it may be argued that anything
is subsidized). My understanding is that I'm paying for things like
dialysis, should I need them, by pooling my risk of needing such things
with other people. Need dialysis be expensive?
Dutch physician Willem Kolff, the inventor of the dialysis
machine in the 1940s, told me he was shocked to learn of the
high cost dialysis machinery being used on an experimental basis
in the United States when he immigrated here in 1950. Intent on
altering this situation, Dr. Kolff continuously pushed to reduce
costs. By 1968 he had modified Maytag washing machines into
dialysis machines at a fraction of the cost of machines then in
use. The same year, he sent 21 people home with machines and
two months worth of supplies for a total cost of $360 per
patient. [Reason Magazine, August 1984]
>The technology is there; would you have thousands die while private
>market analysts judge if investing in dialysis research is potentially
>profitable? What if they decide that it isn't? I for one am not sure
>it would be profitable on an unsubsidized basis.
As one might expect, you have no idea of what is really going on. So
you think that the government has to step in to get research going?
Why not ask the fellow who invented the machine?
Or consider how the system stifles equipment innovations.
Kidney-machine inventor Dr. Kolff has now developed a portable
dialysis machine that would enable patients to travel, work more
easily, and generally lead more productive, normal lives. But
Kolff told me that he is unable to get any American
manufacturers interested in making the machine.
The problem is uncertain demand. Prototypes have been made for
$6000 each -- the same cost as American machines used in
dialysis centers when purchased in volume. Although Kolff's
machine could provide dialysis patients with more-satisfying
lifestyles, neither nephrologists, equipment makers, nor
facility operators have much incentive to introduce their
patients to the machines, since it is not clear how they would
fit in to ESRD reimbursement provisions. So Kolff has gone to a
Japanese manufacturer to supply him with prototypes.
And would thousands die? One doesn't hear about it in the case of
hemophiliacs:
The effect of these portrayals [dramatic appeals to the US
congress about kidney failure] should not be minimized. There
are, after all, other catastrophic disabilities that affect as
many people and cost as much to treat as kidney failure but
don't lure as much government money. Richard Rettig, professor
of social sciences at the Illinois Institute of Technology,
notes that the taxpayers are not footing the bill, for example,
to treat hemophiliacs, whose numbers exceed those with kidney
failure. The central symptom of hemophilia is serious bleeding,
and Rettig figures that a quarter of all hemophiliacs "require
continuous replacement of fresh whole blood, plasma, and
clotting concentrates," a therapy at least as expensive as
dialysis.
>
>And besides, government's not a bad market, either, if it operates a
>proper bidding process.
That is a pretty big "if", O mighty evaluator of markets. In the
particular case of ESRD aid, the government offers a fixed fee for dialysis,
regardless of what costs were. The result? It's very profitable indeed to
run dialysis outfits, and new technology is not evaluated properly because of
the uncertainty of how the government will treat it.
In fact, I've answered this last statement of yours as if you'd said
"the government doesn't do too badly at the market, either, if it operates
a proper bidding process." To answer what you actually wrote (which
I believe to be a mis-phrasing) the government is an AWFUL market -- one
of the reasons why it's hard find anyone who still believes in the government
setting all prices. The problem is that a government doesn't have available
the information to set prices correctly, which results in
incorrect prices, which results in misproduction.
Very socialist economies tend to set their prices to reflect politics, not
engineering reality, which is one reason why they have to make it illegal
(for example) to feed bread to cattle (the price of bread is lower than
that of the corresponding amount of grain).
>Then the lowest price competitors get to sell
>to government, and if there's competition, prices will go down.
This would be true enough, but what has happened in this case is that
the government offers a fixed price, so there is no pressure to
charge the government less, so prices stay just where they are.
This ties in nicely with the recent discussion in net.politics of the
increasingly more complex specifications for airplanes -- the government
has indeed put things out for bid, but the specs often limit competition, as
do political requirements (I'm told that the Soviet rifle has much better
performance when dirty than does the American, but do can you see
the American government buying, say, knock-offs of that design?)
>>>I agree with Piotr. I'd rather believe in people than believe in
>>>libertaria anytime.
>>>
>>
>>That's quite a statment for someone who seems to be advocating the
>>welfare state..... Do you believe in people, or do you believe in
>>people with the right chains on them?
>
>In the absence of decent moral education, I believe in people with the
>right chains on them.
>
>Tony Wuersch
>{amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
>/* End of text from inmet:net.politics.t */
That last sentence was so priceless that I thought I'd leave your
signature right next to it. It's so nice to know that you'd like to
give people a "decent moral education". The thought of my (hypothetical)
child getting one of which you'd approve gives me the shudders.
Robert A. Weiler
Keywords:
In article <10...@ucbvax.ARPA> mcg...@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) writes:
>Uh-uh, that it is not. I have yet to see any example in history where the
> state outperformed the market in any field save the destruction of wealth.
>
The good old US of A, from 1946-1985. The most properous nation in recorded
history, even AFTER FDR dont ya know. Course this little thing called WW II
had somethin to do with it.
Bob Weiler.
Piotr Berman
There is a lot of very reliable statistical data which are collected
by goverment institutions.
> >The only central agency in a state which has coercive powers over
> >people within the state is the state.
>
> AHA! Here's the core of what I believe to be your error. There is
> no need for such an agency to be coercive. None.
>
> >So it has a role if a social
> >goal is that educational credentials should be secure and consistent.
>
> Why? If I tell you that my name is "Nat Howard" and can get you to
> agree with me that much, and then we make a joint call to a private
> credentialing service that you trust, you will be convinced that I
> have a given credential if they say I do.
>
> Of course, you may elect not to trust the private agency, feeling that
> a public one would be more trustworthy. If so, you've fallen into the
> bad mistake of believing that public officials are less corrupt
> than private ones.
>
> >>>on the value of particular credentials. Hence, since the best
> >>>guarantor of publicity, enforcement, and agreement between credentials
> >>>is a public regulatory authority,
> >>>and because people outside the
> >>>educational system disturb the system of credentials,
> >>
> >>Support for the implication that the impact that outsiders have
> >>is "distortion" and not "adjustment to reality", please.
> >>
.............
> By "outsiders", I meant the people outside the testing system who
> exert pressure to modify testing criteria. Not the beneficiaries
> of such modification. Indeed, making a government agency be the
> arbiter of such things means that testing criteria MUST be influenced
> by politics. A private agency faces ruin if it's credentials are
> shown to be fraudulent. Not so a government agency. A private agency
> also faces ruin if its credentials are shown to be unattached to
> reality. This is also not so true of a federal agency. In short,
> the forces that act on a private agency tend to make the credentials
> reflect reality more closely. The pressures on a public agency reflect
> the degree of power and interest held by pressure groups, some of whom
> would benefit from certain changes.
>
What we see here is a naive belief in the selfregulatory powers. In fact
SAT tests are widely criticized for being detached from reality. As
somebody put it "since most of the colleges accept practically everybody,
they need some fiction to support the claim of mantaining standarts.
Thus the need for SAT scores". Yesterday there was an article in NYT
about widespread incompetience among doctors. Since no centralized
system of credencial exists, it is extremally difficult to prevent
incompetient (at time fraudulent) doctors to be in the profession.
This illustrates the point that in the absence of universal, imposed
standards, private associations and state agencies are not able to
assure the desired level of competience.
Piotr Berman
J Storrs Hall
>Over there state has much larger role in the economy than in US.
> JoSH loves to equate non-libertarians with communists. He claims that
>liberals believe in slavery. But since Canada of France do not look
>sufficiently "dehumanized", he jumps at once to Eastern Europe.
> Piotr Berman
I believe that the extent of government intervention in the economy
of the western european democracies, including the "socialist" ones
such as Sweden and France, are quite comparable to the US levels,
consisting of direct control of about 40% of the economy and a
complex and pervasive web of regulations over the rest. I have plenty
of bones to pick with these "mixed economy" democracies, but the
socialist ideals have considerably modified by realpolitik in practice
(here and in Western Europe). To judge the socialist ideals themselves
we must look to places where they have been put into practice without
distorting them over such minutiae as human rights. Thus we must look
further east.
I repeat: The western democracies, American and European, represent
ideological arenas where the actual policies are an amalgam of free-
market and socialist ideals. Socialists may not legitimately claim
any credit for the ameliorative effect of the resistance to their
programs. The Eastern European countries are valid demonstrations
of where those programs would lead without such resistance.
--JoSH
J Storrs Hall
>> > Saying that taxation is theft has as much sence as saying that property
>> >s theft. Both statement state opposition to historically evolved social
>> >institutions.
>> As near as I can figure this out, you are saying "it doesn't make sense
>> to say that the government is stealing because it has been doing so
>> for a long time".
>Let's rephrase it into libertarian terms.
Please quit lying to us, Mike. You know and I know that you have no
intention of trying to understand the libertarian view of things
in either the political or moral sense, and are merely being mendacious.
To wit:
> You are free to remain within or
>leave the social contract agreed to by you by your residency in the US.
Please note the implicit assumption that some condition into which
you were born is considered equivalent to your signing a contract.
Mr. Huybenz might as well have said "You are free to remain within
or leave the contract of servitude agreed to by you by your being black."
(to leave by the same means, altering the condition of your birth).
>The government has the right to enforce the contract you have both
>freely entered into and continually renewed.
Oh? If it is a two-sided contract between partners with equal rights
in the matter, why don't *I* have the right to enforce it, or more to the
point, to interpret the points of the contract? The libertarian sheep's
clothing on your statist wolf is slipping, Mike: contracts are to be
interpreted and enforced by neutral arbitrators, not the parties.
>There is enough choice of governments in this world for you to take your
>pick in a more-or-less free market. To claim that there is no libertarian
>government for you to choose from...
>Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
... Is a claim I never made-- in fact in the very letter you're
replying to I gave a list of countries I thought had as good or better
deal in freedom as the US. But by the time one reaches the age of
majority, he has taken on a considerable overhead in terms of the
culture of his native land--if I moved to Japan, for example, I
would more or less have to start all over in terms of education,
of socialization, of making friends and so forth--not to mention
leaving my family behind or the pure expense of the move.
I *dare* you to consider--just exercise your imagination, and think
of a world where changing your government were as easy as changing
your grocer. Or not to go so far, your insurance company. I dare you
to comprehend what the world would be like if changing governments
were as easy as you make it out to be above--if people really had a
choice, if the "social contract" were really a contract. Imagine a
world where Consumer Reports rated police franchises the way they do
fast food chains. Imagine a world where lawmakers had to make
laws people could understand, or no one would buy them; where
judges had to be fair, or no one would hire them; where executives
had to be competent, or no one would patronize them.
Try taking your own words at face value, Mike. What if government
really *were* a matter of voluntary contract? If you find it
impossible to say what you mean, have a go at meaning what you say.
--JoSH
J Storrs Hall
>In article <10...@ucbvax.ARPA> mcg...@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) writes:
>>Uh-uh, that it is not. I have yet to see any example in history where the
>> state outperformed the market in any field save the destruction of wealth.
>>
>The good old US of A, from 1946-1985. The most properous nation in recorded
>history, even AFTER FDR dont ya know. Course this little thing called WW II
>had somethin to do with it.
>
>Bob Weiler.
My God, a Ken Arndt clone. With about 3% the IQ of the original.
--JoSH
Piotr Berman
[concerning low costs of privite charities vs. high cost of the government]
> >on the government. In Libertaria, people who make it hard to be
> >helped, schizophrenics being the most notable case (and there are
> >MILLIONS of them around, some of whom I know), still would be turned
> >away by private agencies.
> >private agencies tends to be the number of bodies they end up helping.
> >Any body that makes life hard on them would reduce the "success" rate.
>
> (say) welfare. People who would put such things in the hands of the state
> deny it to them.
> Is it a shame that AIDS funding is too low? Give them a few bucks.
>
1. Help (charity, wellfare) considered here concerns people who are
in this way or another incapacitated. Thus not only cash benefits
are needed, but also WORK: guidance, therapy etc. Charities have
voluntiers. However, I do not expect the number of voluntiers to
increase drastically under any system. In fact, the capabilities
of charities are often limited by the number of voluntiers, thus
they distribute only as much help as they can do it cheaply.
2. There are various needs which are not particularly popular. The
system proposed would determine the size of help available
according to current fads. Today baby seals are popular, tomorrow
starving Africans. If your case was not popularized yet (or
popularized 4 years ago and now forgotten), you can rot.
AIDS is a good example, since the victims were quite unpopular
for quite a while.
> >>Of course, if you REALLY think that people a libertarian society would
> >>be less generous, you should bear in mind that you are saying that
> >>people tend to give less than a fifth voluntarily than they do under
> >>coercion, and that the poor have not been denied reasonable jobs
> >>by such things as minimum wage laws and licensure. Not a tenable
> >>position. You're also assuming that a large number of people will
> >>need charity -- remember Daniel Mck.'s very well-defended discussion
> >>of unemployment in libertaria.
wellfare and licencing everybody would find employement (or starve
and cease to be unemployed anymore, I presume). Then we have another
argument that everyone should pay himself for health insurance
(if he wishes one) plus save for his old age (or, equivalently,
support his folks). The problem is that I do not see how with
current minimal wage ($6700 yearly) one can afford it. My family
insurance costs more than $2000 a year. Now, necessary savings,
shelter (shack?), clothes and food. OK, possibly I could afford
enough of liver, milk and bread for three people. Oops, I forgot
school for my son! Also, I forgot that my wage will be smaller
than minimal! (the implicit invocation of this arithmetic was
labelled "invoking fictional Dickensian horrors").
> >
> >Again, there are millions of schizophrenics who don't have to live in
> >institutions. I don't remember Daniel's discussion. And I really
> >think people in a libertarian society would be as generous as other
> >people with similar after-tax incomes today. That sounds reasonable
> >to me. And I don't think most people I know are very generous.
>
> Go just a step further. Supply AND demand, remember? In our society,
> the Supply of money is limited by taxation. Demand for private funding
> is ALSO limited -- the government is assumed to be "doing something"
> (and it is, mostly inefficiently) and is put in charge of anything
> regarded as a public health emergency. In a libertarian society,
> the SUPPLY of money is greater (your after-tax income is raised to
> match your pre-tax income) and the DEMAND for those funds from
> private charities is larger. Why? Because the private charities have
> not been subsidized. They have stronger cases that the funds are
> needed, and needed locally. They also can do their part more efficiently.
>
obviously, will cause more people to care about schizophrenics.
Why? Because in the economics course they teach that demand increases
supply. What about another economical law - supply generates demand.
More charitable contributions - more schizofrenics (another way of
cutting unemployement in Libertaria).
> >>Another example? Certainly. Kidney machines are rationed and
> >>subsidized by the government. There has been relatively little research
> >>on improving these machines because the whole thing is pretty closely
> >>regulated, there have also been pretty severe limits placed on access to
> >>those machines. For details, see Reason Magazine, August 1984.
> >
> >Boy, you're in a mess on this one. Government pays for kidney maintenance
> >because most kidney disease sufferers can't afford dialysis. So the
> >government created the market for kidney machines in the first place,
> >by making current technology affordable.
> >
>
> Tsk! When you go to the doctor, how much of the bill do you pay?
> I generally pay $1, because I have health insurance. Was the insurance
> federally subsidized? Nope, not as far as I can tell (modulo, of course,
> the ever-present tax arguments by which it may be argued that anything
> is subsidized). My understanding is that I'm paying for things like
> dialysis, should I need them, by pooling my risk of needing such things
> with other people. Need dialysis be expensive?
As I noted before, the insurance is expensive. My insurance (according
to my employer) costs more than $2000 and I still pay the first $400
for visits, plus unlimited for medicines. Since more than 10% of GNP
are medical services, it seems to be right. No wonder, at leat 25%
of population cannot pay for they insurance.
> [from a libertarian magazine]
> Dutch physician Willem Kolff, the inventor of the dialysis
> machine in the 1940s, told me he was shocked to learn of the
> high cost dialysis machinery being used on an experimental basis
> in the United States when he immigrated here in 1950. Intent on
> altering this situation, Dr. Kolff continuously pushed to reduce
> costs. By 1968 he had modified Maytag washing machines into
> dialysis machines at a fraction of the cost of machines then in
> use. The same year, he sent 21 people home with machines and
> two months worth of supplies for a total cost of $360 per
> patient.
>
> Or consider how the system stifles equipment innovations.
> Kidney-machine inventor Dr. Kolff has now developed a portable
> dialysis machine that would enable patients to travel, work more
> easily, and generally lead more productive, normal lives. But
> Kolff told me that he is unable to get any American
> manufacturers interested in making the machine.
>
> The problem is uncertain demand. Prototypes have been made for
> $6000 each -- the same cost as American machines used in
> dialysis centers when purchased in volume. Although Kolff's
> machine could provide dialysis patients with more-satisfying
> lifestyles, neither nephrologists, equipment makers, nor
> facility operators have much incentive to introduce their
> patients to the machines, since it is not clear how they would
> fit in to ESRD reimbursement provisions. So Kolff has gone to a
> Japanese manufacturer to supply him with prototypes.
> [Reason Magazine, August 1984]
I suspect that there is as much reason in Reason Magazine as there is
truth in Plain Truth (a fundamentalist monthly, which makes feats like
explaining the election results in Australia with quotes from the
Scripture).
The numbers presented here do not add up. First, Kolff makes a dialysis
machines Maytag washers and sends patients home with machines and two
months worth of supplies for a total cost of $360 per patient.
I would like to see Maytag washing machines that cheap (and what
about supplies, were they ordinary detergents?).
Then portable machine (portable washing machine?) that would cost less
than $6k. If they would be that cheap, there would be enough of wealthy
patients who would like to have them. That would create sufficient
market.
It is standard that the inventor is very optimistic about his design.
If this optimism is not shared by profit oriented manufacturers, the
chances are that they were right.
Another flower of reason from Reason Magazine.
> "But Popeo, the son of a working-class family, was offended by his cases
> at Interior. Handed the responsibility for enforcing health and safety
> regulations often capricious and petty in nature, he found that his
> opponents in court were often struggling entrepreneurs. The last straw,
> Popeo related in a recent interview, was when he found himself seeking a
> court injunction to 'close down a one-man mine operation because the
> owner didn't have a two-way radio to talk to himself, or a stretcher to carry
> himself out of the mine if injured.'". [Reason Magazine, Sept., 1985, pp 48].
So the proposal is to make it legal to operate an underground mine
without any safety measures? What if it would be two-men mine?
Are you proposing to abolish all safety regulations? Is the cheaper
coal worth additional deaths? Possibly, work related accidents would
help to eliminate unemployement in Libertaria.
Again about dialysis. Suppose we cut the government funding.
> And would thousands die? One doesn't hear about it in the case of
> hemophiliacs:
>
> The effect of these portrayals [dramatic appeals to the US
> congress about kidney failure] should not be minimized. There
> are, after all, other catastrophic disabilities that affect as
> many people and cost as much to treat as kidney failure but
> don't lure as much government money. Richard Rettig, professor
> of social sciences at the Illinois Institute of Technology,
> notes that the taxpayers are not footing the bill, for example,
> to treat hemophiliacs, whose numbers exceed those with kidney
> failure. The central symptom of hemophilia is serious bleeding,
> and Rettig figures that a quarter of all hemophiliacs "require
> continuous replacement of fresh whole blood, plasma, and
> clotting concentrates," a therapy at least as expensive as
> dialysis.
>
So what happens to uninsured hemofiliacs? Presumably, thousands die.
But this issue is not disscussed in the quote (from Reason Magazine?).
The real problem however is that we cannot support all terapies which
are technologically available. Thus only the cheaper are selected
(cheaper does not mean cheap). Will we be able to support hemophiliacs,
there will be another group. Does it mean that saving lives is not
recommended in any case.
Rifle example shows that government may work better or worse.
Sometimes it does it pretty bad. However, there is no way one
can introduce market principles everywhere.
As rifle example shows, Soviet military tends to have lower costs.
According to the market reasoning (unblemished by petty political
requirements), we should hire the Soviet Red Army for our defence,
with tremendous savings.
In a pure market system everything is a commodity. Health is a
commodity, personal safety is a commodity, elementary education
is a commodity, freedom of speech is a commodity. Granted,
wealth should have its rewards. Having wealth, I may afford
superior health care, good protection, my voice is better heard.
But how large should be the penalties for lacking wealth?
Third-world-like medicine? Substandard education? What else?
What would be the force keeping the fabric of society together?
> >>>I agree with Piotr. I'd rather believe in people than believe in
> >>>libertaria anytime.
> >>>
> >>
> >>That's quite a statment for someone who seems to be advocating the
> >>welfare state..... Do you believe in people, or do you believe in
> >>people with the right chains on them?
> >
> >In the absence of decent moral education, I believe in people with the
> >right chains on them.
> >
> >Tony Wuersch
> >{amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
> >/* End of text from inmet:net.politics.t */
>
> That last sentence was so priceless that I thought I'd leave your
> signature right next to it. It's so nice to know that you'd like to
> give people a "decent moral education". The thought of my (hypothetical)
> child getting one of which you'd approve gives me the shudders.
When convenient, you prefer not to see the sarcasm. On the other hand,
what is your morality? You believe in a society where the ill have nots
have two choices: be pleasant to the haves (they may give me some
charitable help), or die. No government intervention in this interaction.
Let market forces teach the poor to be pleasant.
Piotr Berman
Charley Wingate
>I believe that the extent of government intervention in the economy
>of the western european democracies, including the "socialist" ones
>such as Sweden and France, are quite comparable to the US levels,
>consisting of direct control of about 40% of the economy and a
>complex and pervasive web of regulations over the rest. I have plenty
>of bones to pick with these "mixed economy" democracies, but the
>socialist ideals have considerably modified by realpolitik in practice
>(here and in Western Europe). To judge the socialist ideals themselves
>we must look to places where they have been put into practice without
>distorting them over such minutiae as human rights. Thus we must look
>further east.
Seems to me that it's more than a little questionable as to whether there
has ever been any attempt in any Soviet bloc country to "put socialist
ideals into practice." You'll find more socialists in youir local trappist
monastery.
>I repeat: The western democracies, American and European, represent
>ideological arenas where the actual policies are an amalgam of free-
>market and socialist ideals. Socialists may not legitimately claim
>any credit for the ameliorative effect of the resistance to their
>programs. The Eastern European countries are valid demonstrations
>of where those programs would lead without such resistance.
What about China? Seems to me as though they have quite deliberately turned
away from much of the Stalinist sort of rhetoric and abuses.
Charley Wingate
Robert A. Weiler
Keywords:
In article <2820...@inmet.UUCP> n...@inmet.UUCP writes:
>>/* Written 10:28 am Aug 19, 1985 by pedsgd!bob in inmet:net.politics.t */
>>In article <2820...@inmet.UUCP> n...@inmet.UUCP writes:
>>>If you want a lot of evidence for this, I suggest you read Charles
>>>Murray's "Losing Ground". In brief, the welfare state has harmed those
>>
>>I must get a copy of this book I guess. As refutation, Teddy White in
>>"The Making of the President 1972" claims that the average income for
>>blacks rose dramtically under the Great Society. I can ferret out the
>>exact numbers if you want. Apparently they came from the 1970 census,
>>but its hard to tell. On the down side, the number of broken homes
>>also rose dramatically.
>
>I'd be very interested in precisely what is claimed. Take a look at
>page 62 of Murray's book -- a graph there shows a steep plunge in
>poverty for "blacks & others" (non-whites) from 1960-1970, and then
>an erratic hovering around 30% from 1970-1980.
>
Ok, I've found it. 'The Making of the President - 1972' pg 189.
Quoted without permission:
Conscience, violence, and determined government action
had in the sixties finally begun to open opportunities
for some black people, and the numbers reflected that
too. Median Negro family income had risen by 50 percent
in terms of constant dollars in the course of the
sixties - to $6,520 a year per family in 1970. Only
9 percent of black families had earned more than $10,000
a year in 1960 - by 1970, 24 percent earned more than
that. And *young* black families ( those under thirty-five )
were now averaging $8,900 a year, or 91 percent of white
income in the same age group. Education of sorts was
finally being delivered to American blacks in big cities -
56 percent of all young black adults (between twenty-five
and twenty-nine years old) had completed high school, as
contrasted with 38 percent ten years earlier. By the fall
of 1972, the 727,000 young blacks in college where more
than double the number in college in 1964 - and they
were 9 percent of all American college students; black
illiteracy, counting those over fourteen years old, had
dropped in a decade from 7.5 percent to 3.6 percent.
He goes on to describe the cost in broken homes. However, if we
are to judge the Great Society in economic and education factors,
the figures given indicate to me remarkable success. If Mr Murray
is arguing otherwise, either he or Mr White have made an error,
and you'll have to choose who you believe. BTW, Mr White
considers the Great Society a failure because of its affect on
cities and broken black families, so there is reason to believe
his numbers are accurate; he has no bone to pick.
Bob Weiler.
Gene Mutschler
> What we see here is a naive belief in the selfregulatory powers.
> ...Yesterday there was an article in NYT
> about widespread incompetience among doctors. Since no centralized
> system of credencial exists, it is extremally difficult to prevent
> incompetient (at time fraudulent) doctors to be in the profession.
Wrong again. These doctors are still in practice precisely because
there are credentialling systems. In a free society, where anyone
is free to practice medicine and where competitive pressures would
cause dissemination of information as to relative competence, the bad
doctors would quickly be forced out of business. Under the current
system, all one has to do is pass the exam once, and one is a doctor
for life. What little state review there is is hesitant to take away
a doctor's licence because that would presumably deprive that doctor
of his/her livelihood. The free market would not be so sympathetic.
--
Gene Mutschler {ihnp4 seismo ctvax}!ut-sally!batman!gene
Burroughs Corp.
Austin Research Center cmp....@utexas-20.ARPA
(512) 258-2495
Bill Tanenbaum
> It seems you haven't progressed beyond freedom or dignity because you
> still don't understand them. You seem to think your freedom to climb
> to the top of the economic heap is worth being able to trample on the
> backs of others, whom you'll freely grant the freedom to starve.
>
> (Paraphrase) How noble libertarianism, in it's majestic equality, that
> both rich and poor are equally prohibited from peeing in the privately
> owned streets (without paying), sleeping under the privately owned
> bridges (without paying), and coercing bread from its rightful owners!
> [End of sarcasm and rhetoric. Phew. Good thing I don't do this too often.]
--
What sarcasm? Mike has accurately summed up the consequences of
extreme Libertarianism in a nutshell. Mike, please do this MORE often.
--
Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
Piotr Berman
> > ... Martin referred to Western Europe, obviously.
> >Over there state has much larger role in the economy than in US.
> >...
> > JoSH loves to equate non-libertarians with communists. He claims that
> >liberals believe in slavery. But since Canada of France do not look
> >sufficiently "dehumanized", he jumps at once to Eastern Europe.
> > Piotr Berman
>
> of the western european democracies, including the "socialist" ones
> such as Sweden and France, are quite comparable to the US levels,
> consisting of direct control of about 40% of the economy and a
> complex and pervasive web of regulations over the rest. I have plenty
> of bones to pick with these "mixed economy" democracies, but the
> socialist ideals have considerably modified by realpolitik in practice
> (here and in Western Europe). To judge the socialist ideals themselves
> we must look to places where they have been put into practice without
> distorting them over such minutiae as human rights. Thus we must look
> further east.
>
> ideological arenas where the actual policies are an amalgam of free-
> market and socialist ideals. Socialists may not legitimately claim
> any credit for the ameliorative effect of the resistance to their
> programs. The Eastern European countries are valid demonstrations
> of where those programs would lead without such resistance.
>
What is the resistance JoSH is talking about? Who was against mixed
economy in Western Europe? Answer: fringe groups, that's all.
As somebody noticed, the speed of economical growth in years
after WWII in Western countries is larger than at any time before.
If the argument of JoSH would be valid, then the following would
be valid as well: if you do not like martini consisting of one big
block of ice + one drop of vodka then you should drink undiluted
warm vodka.
As a person who either drinks pure water or pure alcohol, JoSH would
rely exlusively on the market. In his argument, he equates
democratic state, which incorporates checks and balances, with an
undemocratic one, which doesnot. His argument about the superiority
of the free market assumes a one-sided picture of a human being: a
profit maximizer. This may suffice in short-range economical modeling,
but fails when applied to a model of a complete political system.
Group interests, antagonisms and power games will surface in any system.
His belief that the market may be a sufficient moderator is just a
wishful thinking. His statement about detrimantal role of state in a
mixed economy defies the unprecedent succes of the mixed economies.
Piotr Berman
n...@inmet.uucp
>/* Written 5:59 pm Sep 3, 1985 by psuvax1!berman in inmet:net.politics.t */
>/* ---------- "Re: Credentials, State vs. private" ---------- */
>> >I assume you agree with the first sentence. As far as the second goes,
>> >I think of a credentialing scheme like a security setup. The most
>> >secure setups are where an outside, central agency takes charge of
>> >security and makes sure that all sub-central security arrangements
>> >are consistent, so that the system as a whole is secure against hostile
>> >entry. And where everyone knows the rules. The same rules which
>> >maintain secure environments are the rules which maintain consistent
>> >credentialing systems.
>> >
>>
>> No support here for the notion that the state must administer such
>> a system -- the "outside, central agency" need not be public at
>> all (ETS isn't). Indeed, public agencies have the problem of being
>> under government pressure to pump the scores up. Private agencies
>> are presumably a little more resistant.
>
>This is no a communist country, but a country with checks and balaces.
>There is a lot of very reliable statistical data which are collected
>by goverment institutions.
Ho-hum. Does this overqualified statement mean anything? I suppose we
know how many salmon spawn in Alaska, but the accuracy of certain
government figures is widely debated. Indeed, a certain (rather
libertarian) book I lent to someone in the social sciences was slammed
because it used census data ("Which everyone knows is not worth
anything"). Perhaps you didn't notice when Ronnie's administration
presided over a change in the way cost-of-living was calculated
(around 1981, if I remember right). It was contended at the time that
the old method (which showed a higher cost of living) was causing inflation
because so many contracts (and a lot of public perception) were pegged to it.
No, the government doesn't do this sort of thing lightly, and it cannot
prevent (at least not so far) independent statistical studies. But
to argue that because our system has checks and balances, the figures
our government puts out are actually representative is sort of silly.
SAT tests are indeed widely criticized. So, for example, is this or that
football team. The solution? Use SAT scores to evaluate certain things
and not others. I do not argue for a moment that SAT scores are perfect
for any use whatsoever. In fact, I suggest you dig up some of their
literature and see if you can find precisely what they promise to do.
All colleges that I'm familiar with use SAT or other standardized
tests to evaluate certain aspects of a prospect, but they would
be fools to reject or accept a student on that basis alone, just as
you would be a fool to hire someone on the basis of having a "CCP" after
his name.
I see here no evidence that government testing would be any better --
certainly we would see "self-regulatory" behavior there too.
>Yesterday there was an article in NYT
>about widespread incompetience among doctors. Since no centralized
>system of credencial exists, it is extremally difficult to prevent
>incompetient (at time fraudulent) doctors to be in the profession.
Excuse me, but I believe you can call the AMA to verify such things,
can you not? If not, perhaps you could call the school name that
appears on the Doctor's MD? I've noticed that real doctors tend
to post their diplomas prominently.
>This illustrates the point that in the absence of universal, imposed
>standards, private associations and state agencies are not able to
>assure the desired level of competience.
Excuse me, but there's no evidence in your note to suggest that federal
agencies would do any better. Against someone who SEEMS legit, and who
can bribe the right people, federally-controlled systems are probably
even weaker. I'm also curious who you think would sit on the board
of a hypothetical federal testing agency. Do you suppose we'd find....
doctors? Perhaps the same ones who make up the AMA? Why not?
By the way, how did these bogus doctors fare in the face of malpractice
suits? What were their insurance premiums like? If they were merely
incompetent (as opposed to fraudulent) how is the government to
test them for this.
n...@inmet.uucp
>/* Written 1:20 am Sep 4, 1985 by psuvax1!berman in inmet:net.politics.t */
>/* ---------- "Re: Health Care, Wonderful Market f" ---------- */
>Warning: may be boring.
>[concerning low costs of privite charities vs. high cost of the government]
>> >People who make it hard to be helped get dumped
>> >on the government. In Libertaria, people who make it hard to be
>> >helped, schizophrenics being the most notable case (and there are
>> >MILLIONS of them around, some of whom I know), still would be turned
>> >away by private agencies.
>> >Remember, the criteria for success for
>> >private agencies tends to be the number of bodies they end up helping.
>> >Any body that makes life hard on them would reduce the "success" rate.
>>
>> ................. Right now, those people do NOT have a choice regarding
>> (say) welfare. People who would put such things in the hands of the state
>> deny it to them.
>> Is it a shame that AIDS funding is too low? Give them a few bucks.
>>
>There are two issues conveniently omitted.
>1. Help (charity, wellfare) considered here concerns people who are
> in this way or another incapacitated. Thus not only cash benefits
> are needed, but also WORK: guidance, therapy etc. Charities have
> voluntiers. However, I do not expect the number of voluntiers to
> increase drastically under any system. In fact, the capabilities
> of charities are often limited by the number of voluntiers, thus
> they distribute only as much help as they can do it cheaply.
Ho-hum. You seem to have missed little places like the Salvation
Army, which does some of the stuff you're talking about, and certain
religious and private charities which help do retraining. IF you are right,
then work, guidance, and therapy should be provided. If you can convince
others you are right, such things WILL be provided (they are now, on
a limited scale). In a libertarian society, you need only to find
one or two crazy millionaires to set up such a charity. In a more
statist society, you must find and convince all the appropriate government
bureaus.
By the way, Piotr, lots of charitable concerns employ non-volunteers.
>2. There are various needs which are not particularly popular. The
> system proposed would determine the size of help available
> according to current fads. Today baby seals are popular, tomorrow
> starving Africans. If your case was not popularized yet (or
> popularized 4 years ago and now forgotten), you can rot.
> AIDS is a good example, since the victims were quite unpopular
> for quite a while.
Oh, Piotr. Give it just a LITTLE thought -- government is MORE sensitive
to this than private charity. Most folks give to the United Way without
making any special effort to find out, except in a general way, where the
money is going. Of course, if it is PUBLIC money, then you can bet
that the political popularity of where the money is going will be very
carefully judged -- and if you don't have the right lobbyists, and make
the right connections, you can REALLY rot.
>> >>Of course, if you REALLY think that people a libertarian society would
>> >>be less generous, you should bear in mind that you are saying that
>> >>people tend to give less than a fifth voluntarily than they do under
>> >>coercion, and that the poor have not been denied reasonable jobs
>> >>by such things as minimum wage laws and licensure. Not a tenable
>> >>position. You're also assuming that a large number of people will
>> >>need charity -- remember Daniel Mck.'s very well-defended discussion
>> >>of unemployment in libertaria.
>The argument of McKiernan is that in the absence of minimal wage,
>wellfare and licencing everybody would find employement (or starve
>and cease to be unemployed anymore, I presume).
Tsk! I don't recall McKiernan mentioning starving people in this context.
>Then we have another
>argument that everyone should pay himself for health insurance
>(if he wishes one) plus save for his old age (or, equivalently,
>support his folks).
It amazes me that you can read! The TOPIC of discussion is charity
under a libertarian society, and you're trying to imply that everyone,
even those who are natural objects of charity are expected to pay
for themselves.
>The problem is that I do not see how with
>current minimal wage ($6700 yearly) one can afford it. My family
>insurance costs more than $2000 a year. Now, necessary savings,
>shelter (shack?), clothes and food. OK, possibly I could afford
>enough of liver, milk and bread for three people. Oops, I forgot
>school for my son! Also, I forgot that my wage will be smaller
>than minimal! (the implicit invocation of this arithmetic was
>labelled "invoking fictional Dickensian horrors").
I think you've misquoted JoSH. I believe he said "[Litany of Dickensian
horrors]". If you can't find the word "fictional" in that bracketed
statement, you owe JoSH and the net an apology, and I'll expect it
forthwith.
The problem, Piotr, is that you are not listening to what people are
telling you. Just for example, your complaint about the cost of
medicine is based on the current costs of such a setup. It has been
pointed out in detail how doctors control the AMA, which in turn
employs the law with regard to "practicing medicine without a license"
to keep the number of doctors artificially low, and thus the price
is artificially high. More important, you would indeed be foolish
to attempt to raise a family of four on minimum wage. Why not a family
of 10? Or 20? The reason is that you would, I hope, exercise a certain
discretion in bringing children into an uncertain world when the
expectation is that you could not afford to feed them.
Of course, misfortune may befall anyone, and they may not have
had the chance to lay something aside just in case.
WITH a minimum wage, you (and thus your family) may find it impossible
to make money at all. Without it, you've a chance.
With government charity, you may fall through this or that crack
or be unable to fight your way through the bureaucracy in order to
get money (I'm told, New York City copes with the
problem of not having enough money to support all those that it is
required to place on Welfare by putting up bureaucratic obstacles
to getting the money -- the people who can't get all the way through
the maze don't get the checks).
>> >Again, there are millions of schizophrenics who don't have to live in
>> >institutions. I don't remember Daniel's discussion. And I really
>> >think people in a libertarian society would be as generous as other
>> >people with similar after-tax incomes today. That sounds reasonable
>> >to me. And I don't think most people I know are very generous.
>>
>> Go just a step further. Supply AND demand, remember? In our society,
>> the Supply of money is limited by taxation. Demand for private funding
>> is ALSO limited -- the government is assumed to be "doing something"
>> (and it is, mostly inefficiently) and is put in charge of anything
>> regarded as a public health emergency. In a libertarian society,
>> the SUPPLY of money is greater (your after-tax income is raised to
>> match your pre-tax income) and the DEMAND for those funds from
>> private charities is larger. Why? Because the private charities have
>> not been subsidized. They have stronger cases that the funds are
>> needed, and needed locally. They also can do their part more efficiently.
>>
>Market forces indeed. More schizofrenics,
>obviously, will cause more people to care about schizophrenics.
>Why? Because in the economics course they teach that demand increases
>supply. What about another economical law - supply generates demand.
>More charitable contributions - more schizofrenics (another way of
>cutting unemployement in Libertaria).
I wasn't aware of any elasticity in supply for schizophrenics. Of course,
there is in a public charity system elasticity in DEMAND, so that people
meeting the criteria are paid, but in a private setup, there's a limited
amount of money (and a limited amount of credibility). In a public
setup, there's an unlimited amount of credibility. Don't believe it?
Want examples? Surely. New York City, by the terms of a court
agreement, is obliged to provide places to sleep for all of its homeless.
All, regardless of how they came to be homeless, regardless of
where they came from.
>> >>Another example? Certainly. Kidney machines are rationed and
>> >>subsidized by the government. There has been relatively little research
>> >>on improving these machines because the whole thing is pretty closely
>> >>regulated, there have also been pretty severe limits placed on access to
>> >>those machines. For details, see Reason Magazine, August 1984.
>> >
>> >Boy, you're in a mess on this one. Government pays for kidney maintenance
>> >because most kidney disease sufferers can't afford dialysis. So the
>> >government created the market for kidney machines in the first place,
>> >by making current technology affordable.
>> >
>>
>> Tsk! When you go to the doctor, how much of the bill do you pay?
>> I generally pay $1, because I have health insurance. Was the insurance
>> federally subsidized? Nope, not as far as I can tell (modulo, of course,
>> the ever-present tax arguments by which it may be argued that anything
>> is subsidized). My understanding is that I'm paying for things like
>> dialysis, should I need them, by pooling my risk of needing such things
>> with other people. Need dialysis be expensive?
>
>As I noted before, the insurance is expensive. My insurance (according
>to my employer) costs more than $2000 and I still pay the first $400
>for visits, plus unlimited for medicines. Since more than 10% of GNP
>are medical services, it seems to be right. No wonder, at leat 25%
>of population cannot pay for they insurance.
Again, you'd find this sort of thing cheaper in a libertarian society.
Of course, if you were really badly off, you'd have to depend on
private charity. (Probably mostly in the form of foundations for helping
out people in relatively specific situations, just as scholarships used
to be at older schools).
That's nice. What you SUSPECT, and what you are willing to back up
with (say) history from some other source would seem to be two different
things. In the meantime, you'll find that sleazy rhetoric linking
"Reason" with "Plain Truth" is mostly self-defeating.
>The numbers presented here do not add up. First, Kolff makes a dialysis
>machines Maytag washers and sends patients home with machines and two
>months worth of supplies for a total cost of $360 per patient.
>I would like to see Maytag washing machines that cheap (and what
>about supplies, were they ordinary detergents?).
Tsk! I would love to see 1968 dollars (360 of which were spent
per patient) available now. READ what the other person writes,
and apply just a little thought before replying, Piotr. You'll
humiliate yourself a little less that way.
To be specific: it's clear from the quote above that we're talking
$360 in *1968*.
One 1967 dollar (which I hope you will agree was
about the same as a 1968 dollar) is worth about 3.06 1984 dollars
(source, Information Please Almanac, 1985) for "all items", or about
3.73 1984 dollars (for medical expenses). This would make the
360 dollars into about $1080 1984 dollars. Looking in my 1985
Consumer Reports Buying Guide, I find that a cheap washing
machine costs about $450. (pp 70). The only Maytag listed is a little
more -- about $565 (it was, by the way, the top scorer). Assuming
that the motors (or whatever) in they Maytag were used, and that the
only new mechanical implements were the bags shown in the article
(as well as filtering equipment), I think that the inventor
of the dialysis machine could come in under budget. Of course,
we don't know what a washing machine cost then, but I invite you
to do just a little research before replying.
>Then portable machine (portable washing machine?) that would cost less
>than $6k. If they would be that cheap, there would be enough of wealthy
>patients who would like to have them. That would create sufficient
>market.
Would it? Sufficient for what? Who knows about this? Would such
machines be legal? Would even a fairly wealthy user buy a somewhat
better service if the government will give a service to him free? Only
if his marginal gain is greater than his marginal cost. Put it another
way: would you put in your own pool if the government put up an acceptable
one next to you and charged very low for its use? Only those who
would MUCH prefer the private one would do so.
>It is standard that the inventor is very optimistic about his design.
>If this optimism is not shared by profit oriented manufacturers, the
>chances are that they were right.
On the other hand, the Japanese firm HAS built the prototypes. In
fact, the article goes on to say that that Maytag refused to sell
more machines to the inventor because of the uncertainty surrounding
the question of Maytag's liability in the case of a failure.
>Another flower of reason from Reason Magazine.
Have you ever read it? Are you prepared to challenge it's text with
anything but wind?
>> "But Popeo, the son of a working-class family, was offended by his cases
>> at Interior. Handed the responsibility for enforcing health and safety
>> regulations often capricious and petty in nature, he found that his
>> opponents in court were often struggling entrepreneurs. The last straw,
>> Popeo related in a recent interview, was when he found himself seeking a
>> court injunction to 'close down a one-man mine operation because the
>> owner didn't have a two-way radio to talk to himself, or a stretcher to carry
>> himself out of the mine if injured.'". [Reason Magazine, Sept., 1985, pp 48].
>
>So the proposal is to make it legal to operate an underground mine
>without any safety measures?
You've neatly excised the motivating quote from above. The argument was
that courts looked at the intent of law and were very reasonable at the
federal level. Not true.
To reply to your question, however, it would indeed be legal to operate
an underground mine without any safety measures. Just as it is now
legal to eat ground glass or attempt to drink the atlantic ocean.
>What if it would be two-men mine?
>Are you proposing to abolish all safety regulations? Is the cheaper
>coal worth additional deaths?
Oho! Quite a question: I would put it up to the owners of the lives at
risk. You feel that the government knows better than they what risks
they "should" take? Remember, I don't object to the government saying:
"This is risky, you shouldn't do it" -- I don't object to their
neighbors saying "fellas: what you're doing is stupid and we won't
sell you any more blasting powder until you fix things up". All I am
saying is that the owner of a life should be able to decide, without
force or fraud, how he wishes to risk it.
>Possibly, work related accidents would
>help to eliminate unemployement in Libertaria.
I suppose so -- by causing companies to hire safety experts, more
careful inspectors, arbiters (in the cases of fraud), doctors, and,
(though not as often as in our society where the government gets off
scott-free after allowing people to breathe asbestos dust) morticians.
>Again about dialysis. Suppose we cut the government funding.
>
>> And would thousands die? One doesn't hear about it in the case of
>> hemophiliacs:
>>
>> The effect of these portrayals [dramatic appeals to the US
>> congress about kidney failure] should not be minimized. There
>> are, after all, other catastrophic disabilities that affect as
>> many people and cost as much to treat as kidney failure but
>> don't lure as much government money. Richard Rettig, professor
>> of social sciences at the Illinois Institute of Technology,
>> notes that the taxpayers are not footing the bill, for example,
>> to treat hemophiliacs, whose numbers exceed those with kidney
>> failure. The central symptom of hemophilia is serious bleeding,
>> and Rettig figures that a quarter of all hemophiliacs "require
>> continuous replacement of fresh whole blood, plasma, and
>> clotting concentrates," a therapy at least as expensive as
>> dialysis.
>>
>So what happens to uninsured hemofiliacs? Presumably, thousands die.
Well? Anything to back up your presumption? Some reason to think
that the people who've seen their children die from such conditions would
not contribute (later, when they are able to) to funds that would help
them?
>But this issue is not disscussed in the quote (from Reason Magazine?).
>The real problem however is that we cannot support all terapies which
>are technologically available. Thus only the cheaper are selected
>(cheaper does not mean cheap).
This is certainly true if the GOVERNMENT controls things. Private
individuals will see varying trade-offs between side-effects and money,
and (of course) be able to support varying trade offs. Governments
(or in the case of libertaria) private charities, will opt for the
cheapest therapy, given their own notions of acceptability.
>Will we be able to support hemophiliacs,
>there will be another group. Does it mean that saving lives is not
>recommended in any case.
It means that if you think something should be done about disease,
poverty, pain, and loss, then one should do something about it, but
one has no right to FORCE a neighbor to do what one thinks is the
best thing.
Tsk! The rifle example shows that ONE government may work
better or worse than another. READ before you reply, O dense one!
>In a pure market system everything is a commodity. Health is a
>commodity, personal safety is a commodity, elementary education
>is a commodity, freedom of speech is a commodity. Granted,
>wealth should have its rewards. Having wealth, I may afford
>superior health care, good protection, my voice is better heard.
>But how large should be the penalties for lacking wealth?
>Third-world-like medicine? Substandard education? What else?
>What would be the force keeping the fabric of society together?
>
It's been pointed out time and time again that people in a libertarian
society are just as dependent on each other as people in other societies,
and that libertarians would not have it otherwise. The penalty for
not having wealth in a libertarian society is that you may be dependent
on the voluntary charity of others before you can work your way up
in a society full of opportunity.
>> >>>I agree with Piotr. I'd rather believe in people than believe in
>> >>>libertaria anytime.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>That's quite a statment for someone who seems to be advocating the
>> >>welfare state..... Do you believe in people, or do you believe in
>> >>people with the right chains on them?
>> >
>> >In the absence of decent moral education, I believe in people with the
>> >right chains on them.
>> >
>> >Tony Wuersch
>> >{amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
>> >/* End of text from inmet:net.politics.t */
>>
>> That last sentence was so priceless that I thought I'd leave your
>> signature right next to it. It's so nice to know that you'd like to
>> give people a "decent moral education". The thought of my (hypothetical)
>> child getting one of which you'd approve gives me the shudders.
>
>When convenient, you prefer not to see the sarcasm.
I saw no smiley face ":-)" which would have indicated sarcasm. Nor did
Tony's comment strike me as sarcastic.
>On the other hand,
>what is your morality? You believe in a society where the ill have nots
>have two choices: be pleasant to the haves (they may give me some
>charitable help), or die.
This is quite far off the mark. As I pointed out, there's plenty of reason
to believe that even the hard-to-help would be helped in Libertaria,
if only by people who'd had friends and relatives who were similarly
afflicted and understood the need.
It IS true that libertarian society enforces a certain degree of pleasantness
on those who wish help from others. Denied the option of stealing from
people via the state, you must be more pleasant to deal with than
alternative forms of charity, but this doesn't mean the actual objects of
charity (schizophrenics, say) must make the pitch.
Some people can survive without most human contact, and thus may become
as unpleasant as they wish. I don't care, for example, how pleasant
the fellow is who owns a vending machine I patronize -- so long as the
candy is fresh, and I lose no money. I don't care how unpleasant the
fellow is who is ringing the bell for the Salvation Army -- so long
as he doesn't actually make it difficult, I give.
>No government intervention in this interaction.
>Let market forces teach the poor to be pleasant.
Look, Piotr, try, just try, and understand what the other fellow
is saying. The poor need not be pleasant -- people who are concerned
about the poor must be, or the people who wish to give must understand.
No more than that.
n...@inmet.uucp
If I've read White correctly, he's talking about how prosperous some
blacks had become, but not about what percentage were below the poverty
line. Similarly, Murray talks about how many were below the poverty
line, but not how prosperous blacks in general are. In short, I don't
see any necessary contradiction between the figures White supplies, and
the figures Murray supplies.
Piotr Berman
>
> > What we see here is a naive belief in the selfregulatory powers.
> > ...Yesterday there was an article in NYT
> > about widespread incompetience among doctors. Since no centralized
> > system of credencial exists, it is extremally difficult to prevent
> > incompetient (at time fraudulent) doctors to be in the profession.
>
> Wrong again. These doctors are still in practice precisely because
> there are credentialling systems. In a free society, where anyone
> is free to practice medicine and where competitive pressures would
> cause dissemination of information as to relative competence, the bad
> doctors would quickly be forced out of business.
Wrong again. How a competitive pressure would cause dissemination
of information as to relative competence? The only result of
"competitive pressure" could be an advertising war between providers
of health services. As a consumer, I would receive a barrage of
conflicting claims. Another possibility as that the group with the
best credencials (like AMA) would curtail this as well as it happens
today.
When I am ill the first time in a given city, I take Yellow Pages
and look for a needed specialist. I do not want to get a competient
one after many trials and errors.
One does not to be psychic to forsee the consequences of the
system proposed by Gene. After many trials and errors, I am yet to
find a decent auto mechanic in my small city. Yet, I havenot noticed
any dissemination of information as to relative competence in this
area. It s clear why. Who could make money on this? Perhaps you,
Gene, but I do know how to do it. Unfortunately, I cannot afford as
many bad experiences in my health care.
Piotr Berman
Mike Huybensz
For the purposes of this argument, I am adopting my interpretation of
libertarianism to refute Josh's fallacious claims that taxation is theft.
I claim that a "social contract" is a valid libertarian-style contract.]
> >[Mike Huybensz]
> >Let's rephrase it into libertarian terms.
>
> [J Storrs Hall]
> Please quit lying to us, Mike. You know and I know that you have no
> intention of trying to understand the libertarian view of things
> in either the political or moral sense, and are merely being mendacious.
On the contrary. I understand the libertarian point of view well enough
to recognize that they quote their "principles" where convenient but forget
about them where inconvenient to their self-serving goals. Thus I'm
pointing out those instances. (I am strongly reminded of many political
and religious demagogues who work the same way.)
> To wit:
> > You are free to remain within or
> >leave the social contract agreed to by you by your residency in the US.
>
> Please note the implicit assumption that some condition into which
> you were born is considered equivalent to your signing a contract.
> Mr. Huybenz might as well have said "You are free to remain within
> or leave the contract of servitude agreed to by you by your being black."
> (to leave by the same means, altering the condition of your birth).
I think I'm going to treasure a number of your responses (like the above
paragraph) that I'm answering here, because they are precisely the kinds
of responses I've given you as examples of unjustness of libertaria.
Let's put aside (for the moment) the problem of new citizens (which
hypothetical libertarias don't seem to handle well.) You are now an
adult. You can come and go as you will. So why isn't the social
contract entirely voluntary?
> >The government has the right to enforce the contract you have both
> >freely entered into and continually renewed.
>
> Oh? If it is a two-sided contract between partners with equal rights
> in the matter, why don't *I* have the right to enforce it, or more to the
> point, to interpret the points of the contract? The libertarian sheep's
> clothing on your statist wolf is slipping, Mike: contracts are to be
> interpreted and enforced by neutral arbitrators, not the parties.
You certainly do have those rights. You may file a suit with the Judicial
branch (note that you've agreed to the arbitor in the contract.) If you
don't think the Judicial branch is neutral, you have several options.
You can try to organize "consumer" pressure, or you may negotiate a
contract with some other purveyor of governmental services.
> >There is enough choice of governments in this world for you to take your
> >pick in a more-or-less free market. To claim that there is no libertarian
> >government for you to choose from...
>
> ... Is a claim I never made--
... is also out of context of the remainder of my sentence. I didn't accuse
you of that claim: I was pre-empting it. Cheap debating trick, Josh.
> But by the time one reaches the age of
> majority, he has taken on a considerable overhead in terms of the
> culture of his native land--if I moved to Japan, for example, I
> would more or less have to start all over in terms of education,
> of socialization, of making friends and so forth--not to mention
> leaving my family behind or the pure expense of the move.
All very true. But that is economics, not coercion (by libertarian
standards.) If the economics (read market) dictate that you remain
here, sorry, that's the libertarian idea of fair. Nobody is stopping
you from incurring those costs to exercise your right to make a choice.
Or do you want a government handout for it? :-)
> I *dare* you to consider--just exercise your imagination, and think
> of a world where changing your government were as easy as changing
> your grocer. Or not to go so far, your insurance company. I dare you
> to comprehend what the world would be like if changing governments
> were as easy as you make it out to be above--if people really had a
> choice, if the "social contract" were really a contract. Imagine a
> world where Consumer Reports rated police franchises the way they do
> fast food chains. Imagine a world where lawmakers had to make
> laws people could understand, or no one would buy them; where
> judges had to be fair, or no one would hire them; where executives
> had to be competent, or no one would patronize them.
Guess what: we already have most of that. I've seen quite a number of
reports from many sources evaluating the relative merits of the 50 states
(and numerous nations) in all the categories above. Moving between
states is as effortless as you wish. Moving between many nations is only
a little more difficult. But keep in mind that the provider of services
should not be coerced into accepting you as a customer for one of their
social contracts. If they don't like your race or nationality or religion
or language or job, they should be able to arbitrarily refuse to make a
contract with you. So you mustn't complain if you cannot get to be a
resident or citizen of any particular nation.
> Try taking your own words at face value, Mike. What if government
> really *were* a matter of voluntary contract? If you find it
> impossible to say what you mean, have a go at meaning what you say.
In the US and a number of other nations, government effectively is a
matter of voluntary contract (for adults.) You still haven't shown me
any evidence to the contrary.
Children are a special case. When you explain to me how libertarian
principles apply to guardianship (are spankings assault?) I'll provide as
explicit an answer as you'd like. It might well be that our laws should be
relaxed to allow any child to fend for himself at whatever age, emigrating
if he so desires.
--
Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
J Storrs Hall
> Median Negro family income had risen by 50 percent...
> ... And *young* black families ( those under thirty-five )
> were now averaging $8,900 a year, or 91 percent of white
>
>... If Mr Murray
>is arguing otherwise, either he or Mr White have made an error,
>and you'll have to choose who you believe.
As usual, the actual situation is (was) more complex than Usenet
cheapthought allows for. White's figures, and others usually
used to show the "success" of the Great Society, are perfectly
compatible with Murray's, and as far as I know, all of them are
literally factual. What White (and Weiler) do is show the
optimistic aggregates that resulted from the righ getting richer,
and ignore that the poor were getting poorer. Murray makes a
point of showing that the top two fifths of blacks did very
well from the Great Society, but that it put a cap on the bottom
fifth, whom it locked permanently into poverty.
--JoSH
J Storrs Hall
>> I repeat: The western democracies, American and European, represent
>> ideological arenas where the actual policies are an amalgam of free-
>> market and socialist ideals. Socialists may not legitimately claim
>> any credit for the ameliorative effect of the resistance to their
>> programs. The Eastern European countries are valid demonstrations
>> of where those programs would lead without such resistance.
>> --JoSH
> What is the resistance JoSH is talking about? Who was against mixed
>economy in Western Europe? ...
>Piotr Berman
Ah, come on! You have got to be stupid as well as malicious to
misinterpret something that badly. The mixed economy is the RESULT
of the conflict of free market and command economy ideologies.
--JoSH
Laura Creighton
Yes, you will find real working Socialism in Trappist Monasteries. But
you will only find people who want to live in a Trappist Monastery in
them.
--
Laura Creighton (note new address!)
sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen)
l5!la...@lll-crg.arpa
J Storrs Hall
Mark Roddy
> I repeat: The western democracies, American and European, represent
> ideological arenas where the actual policies are an amalgam of free-
> market and socialist ideals. Socialists may not legitimately claim
> any credit for the ameliorative effect of the resistance to their
> programs. The Eastern European countries are valid demonstrations
> of where those programs would lead without such resistance.
>
ideological arenas where the actual policies are an amalgam of socialist
and free-market ideals. Free-marketeers may not legitimately claim
any credit for the ameliorative effect of the resistance to their
Really, occupied Eastern Europe ain't much of an example of anything except
the grim reality of statist oppression. You could choose any of the Western
European countries where non-statist socialism has had a fairly free reign
over the last 40 years or so (say Sweden for example,) but then things don't
look quite so bad. It is a bit wierd to ignore the difference between
democratic-socialist ideas implemented in a democracy, and
marxist-leninist state socialism imposed on a society.
--
Mark Roddy
Net working,
Just reading the news.
(harvard!talcott!panda!enmasse!mroddy)
Piotr Berman
> >> [quoting me]
> >> ideological arenas where the actual policies are an amalgam of free-
> >> market and socialist ideals. Socialists may not legitimately claim
> >> any credit for the ameliorative effect of the resistance to their
> >> programs. The Eastern European countries are valid demonstrations
> >> of where those programs would lead without such resistance.
>
> > What is the resistance JoSH is talking about? Who was against mixed
> >economy in Western Europe? ...
> >Piotr Berman
>
> Ah, come on! You have got to be stupid as well as malicious to
> misinterpret something that badly. The mixed economy is the RESULT
> of the conflict of free market and command economy ideologies.
>
> --JoSH
There are two points of view on ideologies and policies. JoSH thinks
that as the first thing an average person/politician/bissnessman
establishes a philosophical basis of his opinions. Subsequently,
his/her actions are guided by the chosen ideology.
My point of view is different. According to my observations, poeple
encounter problems and then look for solutions. In practice, the
professed ideologies have quite moderate impact on their decisions.
Of course, the prevaling ideologies, together with traditions, have
their impact. One may point that in countries without democratic
traditions, like Russia, China, Yugoslavia, socialist ideology yielded
a dictatorship, while in Sweden, with its democratic tradition,
there was no tendency toward dictatorship.
As far as the mixed economy goes, one may notice that it emerged
originally as a set of pragmatic solutions, not supported by any
socialist ideology. Otto Bismark, who introduced the mixed economy
in Germany was a conservative with high contempt toward socialism.
Libertarians claim the Great Depression to be the result of the
inept state intervention by Hoover administration. Again it is
difficult to trace the influence of socialism on Hoover. Even
more difficult is to explain statist tendencies of Hamilton by
any socialist influence. One may point that the mainstream
conservatives, like Eisenhower and Nixon, had nothing against the
mixed economy.
In general, such element of state intervention like public works,
control over banking industry and utilities, are contested exclusively
by a highly ideological minority with no access to decision making
(if one exludes the venerated example of gen. Pinochet). The "free
market" turned into mixed economy not because of the poisonous impact
of socialism, but because the leaders of industry could not copy with
some of the major problems faced by their economies. No one was eager
to finance the interstate system with private funds, or to build it
without eminent domain, or patiently wait until private sector will
be able to accomplish it.
I noticed that JoSH used the term "command economy ideology" instead
of "socialism". In fact, it is difficult to pinpoit any general
ideology of this kind. Moreover, in his previous postings, JoSH
referred to socialism (it was such a posting which I objected to
in a "stupid and malicious" fashion).
Piotr Berman
Rick McGeer
>/* ---------- "Re: Health Care, Wonderful Market f" ---------- */
>Warning: may be boring.
No, just wrong.
>Market forces indeed. More schizofrenics,
>obviously, will cause more people to care about schizophrenics.
>Why? Because in the economics course they teach that demand increases
>supply. What about another economical law - supply generates demand.
>More charitable contributions - more schizofrenics (another way of
>cutting unemployement in Libertaria).
If you meant "economics" rather than economical -- in which case I don't know
what you're talking about -- then it occurs to me that Samuelson, Hirshlifer
and Addison were all remarkably reticent about this supposed "law". Offhand,
I can't think of *any* economics text which states this "law", and I can't
think why demand should rise to meet supply; nor can I think of any instance
in which demand has arisen in response to a supply. I can think of instances
where the consumption of certain products has risen when their supply curves
moved leftward and down, but the demand for the product already existed. The
consumption of small computers is an excellent example: the demand for their
product, information, existed and was largely unmet -- as witness the (then-
existing) demand for a host of substitute products. In contrast we can find in
abundance many goods for which there is no demand whatever -- toxic chemicals
and sand are two that spring to mind immediately.
Piotr, I suggest a good freshman or sophomore economics course. If "PSU"
is a university, I am sure that they have one or two to offer. However, if
the reading list includes anything at all by noted nitwits such as Galbraith,
go take a course at a reputable university.
-- Rick.
Rick McGeer
> As far as the mixed economy goes, one may notice that it emerged
>originally as a set of pragmatic solutions, not supported by any
>socialist ideology. Otto Bismark, who introduced the mixed economy
>in Germany was a conservative with high contempt toward socialism.
Actually, Bismarck was a militarist, with a strong feudalist streak. If there
is any practical difference between feudalism and socialism, it has escaped me.
>Libertarians claim the Great Depression to be the result of the
>inept state intervention by Hoover administration. Again it is
>difficult to trace the influence of socialism on Hoover.
Poor old Hoover is always blamed for the depression, but in fact he had little
to do with it. The proximate cause of the depression was a one-third cut
in the money supply by the Federal Reserve (not a one-third cut in the rate
of increase: a one-third cut in the supply itself). A contributing factor
was Hawley-Smoot, which I hope the Democrats remember this fall...there is
also some evidence that the New Deal extended the Depression.
-- Rick.
Piotr Berman
> >/* ---------- "Re: Health Care, Wonderful Market f" ---------- */
> >Warning: may be boring.
>
> No, just wrong.
>
> >Market forces indeed. More schizofrenics,
> >obviously, will cause more people to care about schizophrenics.
> >Why? Because in the economics course they teach that demand increases
> >supply. What about another economical law - supply generates demand.
> >More charitable contributions - more schizofrenics (another way of
> >cutting unemployement in Libertaria).
>
> If you meant "economics" rather than economical -- in which case I don't know
> what you're talking about -- then it occurs to me that Samuelson, Hirshlifer
> and Addison were all remarkably reticent about this supposed "law". Offhand,
> I can't think of *any* economics text which states this "law", and I can't
> think why demand should rise to meet supply; nor can I think of any instance
> in which demand has arisen in response to a supply. I can think of instances
> where the consumption of certain products has risen when their supply curves
> moved leftward and down, but the demand for the product already existed. The
> consumption of small computers is an excellent example: the demand for their
> product, information, existed and was largely unmet -- as witness the (then-
> existing) demand for a host of substitute products. In contrast we can find in
> abundance many goods for which there is no demand whatever -- toxic chemicals
> and sand are two that spring to mind immediately.
>
> Piotr, I suggest a good freshman or sophomore economics course. If "PSU"
> is a university, I am sure that they have one or two to offer. However, if
> the reading list includes anything at all by noted nitwits such as Galbraith,
> go take a course at a reputable university.
>
> -- Rick.
>
I happen to have a course in economics + I have read several books. As Rick
duly quoted, the "law" of demand increasing to meet suply was formulated (by
Say, if I remember), otherwise Samuelson, Hirshlifer and Addison could not be
> remarkably reticent about this supposed "law".
This law, although flawed, was not altogether irrational. The problem is
that ALL economical have limits on their application. The law of markets
says that if an abundance of a product emerges, then new uses are found,
and hereby the market for the product increases.
Rick cannot think of an instance in which demand has arisen in response
to a supply.
************************************************************************
*Since my reading list includes noted nitwits such as Galbraith, *
*I can think, unlike others, who are learned in reputable schools. *
*Notabene, I was listening to my nitwits in MIT, not PSU. Regretfully *
*enough, I rely more on disreputable sources like history books, Wall *
*Street Journal and Fortune than on textbooks of economics. *
************************************************************************
As an example, if an abundance of small computers emerges, one uses
them instead of typewriters, calculators, file cabinets etc.
One may even invent uses, were never heard about, like flaming on net,
electronic billboards, programing as a pasttime etc.
Sugar, coffe, tea etc. were initially used as medicines and spices, once
abundance of those products appeared, they became staples.
Before their abundance, the need for sweetening everything or adding
foreign substances to water one drinks was barely existent.
Currently, the law of markets is quoted as an example of limited scope
of economical laws, and that was exactly the reason I quoted the existence
of this law.
But you pulled my remarks out of context quite mercilessly.
The argument which I opposed was as follows: if there is a need (like
helping schisophrenics), free market (if unhibited) will supply help.
The claim was that the law of supply and demand applies here.
I claim it to be nonsense. But instead to argue with that, you prefer
to advise me to repeat my sophomore education. Since you are closer
(I presume, sorry if not true) to your sophomore year, may you please
explain how this law will apply here? Perhaps the price of a schisophrenic
will go down?
Seriously, that was a classical solution of this problem: shisophrenics
were werehoused in quite inexpensive, if not inhuman, fashion. That may
be a "free market solution", but I do not buy it as a preferred one.
Now you say that these were the abuses of the state monopoly on
psychiatric care for the not wealthy.
There is major flaw in applying the laws of economy to society
in general. The most general law is that the market has a tendency
toward equilibrium: the demand stimulates the prices up, the supply
stimulates the prices down. Increase of prices may stimulate the
production, decrease may stimulate removing marginal producers from
the market. The real problem is that the equilibrium does not imply
superior fulfillment of social needs.
Consider an example. Imagine that hiking, picknicking, hunting and fishing
increase in popularity in Libertaria. The owners of forests, streams
and mountains invest in building roads, trails, picknic areas etc.
The prices (especially in attractive areas) increse. The value of the
land in the attractive areas increases, and so the costs for the new
providers of the outdoor recreation. As the result, the fees for the
use of streams, paths, picknic tables, parking etc. go up.
Finally, only the more wealthy 50% of population may engage in outdoor
activities.
Currently, by a statist mistake, majority of the attractive areas for
outdoor activities is public. Thus the fees are either not existent,
or small (like fishing licences). Everybody may engage in his/her
favorite form of outdoors. Since the land in question is public,
it is not a subject of trade, so the costs cannot be influenced by
the demand.
Let us compare the outcomes of two processes: free market and state
regulated. In free market, the portion of GNP related to outdoor
recreation would go up considerably, thus the economic indicators
would measure an increase in satisfying social needs.
In the current statist model, GNP barely suggest that public lands
satisfy a major social need. However, not 50% but 100% has the
ability of participation. As a student, I was very happy that
I could hike in Boston Blue Hills or NH White Mountains without a
charge. Similarly, not wealthy farmers and workers of my part
of Pennsylvania are quite happy with the state beaches, hunting
grounds, streams etc. I doubt that they long to a pure market
model. Paraphrasing my libertarian friends "they believe in a
Ponzi scam, they payed taxes for those things and now they are
deluded to think that they got something for nothing". In fact,
most of those people never had sophomore course in economics.
They just do not believe that everything should cost money.
Bill Tanenbaum
> > What we see here is a naive belief in the selfregulatory powers.
> > ...Yesterday there was an article in NYT
> > about widespread incompetience among doctors. Since no centralized
> > system of credencial exists, it is extremally difficult to prevent
> > incompetient (at time fraudulent) doctors to be in the profession.
> [Gene Mutschler]
> Wrong again. These doctors are still in practice precisely because
> there are credentialling systems. In a free society, where anyone
> is free to practice medicine and where competitive pressures would
> cause dissemination of information as to relative competence, the bad
> doctors would quickly be forced out of business. Under the current
> system, all one has to do is pass the exam once, and one is a doctor
> for life. What little state review there is is hesitant to take away
> a doctor's licence because that would presumably deprive that doctor
> of his/her livelihood. The free market would not be so sympathetic.
--
metropolitan areas of the U. S. Only rural areas, many small towns, and
some inner city areas have shortages. The free market, as you call it,
already operates among credentialled physicians. The competitive pressures
you talk about already exist. Doctors and hospitals are already
advertising for patients. It may be true that the medical profession
keeps medical school admissions down to control the supply of doctors.
But when I go to a doctor, I want to know that he/she has gone to medical
school, had some experience as an intern, and passed that exam. So
does virtually everybody else, except Libertarian utopians.
You are right about the condition of state review. Abolishing it
would make matters still worse, not better. At least now, a small handful
of the most blatantly incompetent lose their liscences.
J Storrs Hall
>There are two points of view on ideologies and policies. JoSH thinks
>that as the first thing an average person/politician/bissnessman
>establishes a philosophical basis of his opinions. Subsequently,
>his/her actions are guided by the chosen ideology.
No. I think that some politicians are this way, but that most people,
most politicians included, are not explicitly aware of the ideology
they are exercising. A businessman may profess the free market,
but will nevertheless call for protectionism. His "true" ideology
is mercantilism.
>Of course, the prevaling ideologies, together with traditions, have
>their impact. One may point that in countries without democratic
>traditions, like Russia, China, Yugoslavia, socialist ideology yielded
>a dictatorship, while in Sweden, with its democratic tradition,
>there was no tendency toward dictatorship.
You probably don't realize this, but in the latter part of the nineteenth
century, free market ("libertarian") ideas were the ruling orthodoxy
in most of Scandinavia. This was due to a large influence on the
intellectual elite there by the French politician/writer Bastiat.
> I noticed that JoSH used the term "command economy ideology" instead
>of "socialism". In fact, it is difficult to pinpoit any general
>ideology of this kind. Moreover, in his previous postings, JoSH
>referred to socialism (it was such a posting which I objected to
>in a "stupid and malicious" fashion).
>Piotr Berman
The terms are more-or-less interchangeable as far as I'm concerned,
but arguments abound. Is a Nazi a socialist? He claims to be...
How about a Fascist? Russia also claims to be Socialist. Whatever
its precice boundaries, Socialism is a command economy ideology.
So are Communism, Fascism, Nazism, and numerous others. I will
allow you to call yourself by whatever label you wish, but a rose by
any other name...
--JoSH
Andrew Koenig
> But when I go to a doctor, I want to know that he/she has gone to medical
> school, had some experience as an intern, and passed that exam. So
> does virtually everybody else, except Libertarian utopians.
That, of course, is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether
or not the government should be in the certification business.
Medical schools have reputations, and reputations are not easily
gained or kept. Do you really think that Harvard is going to start
letting incompetents graduate just because the government stops
looking over their shoulders?
In a free society, if you wanted to know whether your doctor had
gone to medical school, you would ask. If you didn't get a
satisfactory answer, you could go elsewhere. The only role the
government would play is that if the answer you got were a lie,
you could press fraud charges.
Piotr Berman
> [JoSH]
I accused JoSH that he thinks that most of the people are motivated
by some ideology.
> No. I think that some politicians are this way, but that most people,
> most politicians included, are not explicitly aware of the ideology
> they are exercising. A businessman may profess the free market,
> but will nevertheless call for protectionism. His "true" ideology
> is mercantilism.
The poor guy does not know that he speaks prose. More seriously,
whatever ideology happen to be professed, people enact (or ask for)
policies which they perceive as doing them some good. Yoy may
provide a classification of their desires (this one is socialist,
that mercantilist, etc.), but this is your ideology, not theirs.
They are pragmatists, not ideologists.
It is a question of debate whether it is better to be an ideologist,
or pragmatist. I myself do not know a clear answer, JoSH claims
that the coherence is more important than "adjusting to reality".
I admit that this standpoint is intellectually atractive: after
numerous adjusments to achieve this and that, a pragmatist may
achieve very little of either.
However, not adjusting may lead to very sordid consequences.
In general, only ideologists are able to meke very bold moves,
when they are necessary. The problem is that a bold meve may
be made in the wrong direction.
A previous posting claim the behaviour of FED to cause the crash
of 1929. They allegedly made a very bold move: decreased money
supply by one third. Afterwards, there was New Deal, and things
improved, but only by a little. Libertarians claim that a bold
lesser-faire policy would be a better cure for the Depression.
Keynessians claim that only truly massive public expenditures
could help, as they did indeed during WWII.
> >Of course, the prevaling ideologies, together with traditions, have
> >their impact. One may point that in countries without democratic
> >traditions, like Russia, China, Yugoslavia, socialist ideology yielded
> >a dictatorship, while in Sweden, with its democratic tradition,
> >there was no tendency toward dictatorship.
>
> You probably don't realize this, but in the latter part of the nineteenth
> century, free market ("libertarian") ideas were the ruling orthodoxy
> in most of Scandinavia. This was due to a large influence on the
> intellectual elite there by the French politician/writer Bastiat.
>
An interesting information. Also, an interesting problem: what caused
the demise of free market ideology in Scandinavia? Apparently, at
certain point people perceived (wrongly?) that the free market is
not working any more, so they replaced it by a mixed system, which
seem to be working for at nearly 50 years (I admit that they got some
problems now, especially in Danmark).
What went wrong? Perceptions, or the very free market?
[I propose that anyone who wants to continue that will go to a
library and read some history, I will do it tomorrow].
Piotr Berman
Martin Taylor
>"political reality" Isn't that an oxymoron? :-) Besides, government is not
>a source of wealth. Unlike uncles, government cannot generate wealth; it can
>give only what it takes from people who produce.
That is false. Wealth is created by the re-organization of things
(the reduction of entropy, if you like). Government most definitely
can aid in such organization. Whether it is the most efficient way
of doing so is a different story, but to regard government as only
a transfer medium for existing wealth is like seeing a painting as
a transfer medium for oil and pigment.
>>So if systemic thinking and a propensity for social surgery are inadmissible
>>then socialists and libertarians are equally guilty of thought-crime.
>
>That is almost like saying that since they both use a knife to cut open people,
>there is no difference between Jack the Ripper and a heart surgeon.
A good analogy. Jack the Ripper was certainly individualistic
in his approach to surgery, in the fine libertarian tradition.
Surgeons cut open people under tightly controlled norms and regulations,
in the socialist tradition.
>
>David Olson
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
Bill Tanenbaum
> > But when I go to a doctor, I want to know that he/she has gone to medical
> > school, had some experience as an intern, and passed that exam. So
> > does virtually everybody else, except Libertarian utopians.
> [Andrew Koenig]
> or not the government should be in the certification business.
>
> Medical schools have reputations, and reputations are not easily
> gained or kept. Do you really think that Harvard is going to start
> letting incompetents graduate just because the government stops
> looking over their shoulders?
>
> In a free society, if you wanted to know whether your doctor had
> gone to medical school, you would ask. If you didn't get a
> satisfactory answer, you could go elsewhere. The only role the
> government would play is that if the answer you got were a lie,
> you could press fraud charges.
Personally, I would rather know ahead of time that whomever I choose
to be my doctor has the basic qualifications. I don't want the burden
on me to determine my doctor's credentials. Anyone who would practice
without having gone to medical school would have no hesitation in lying
about it. Of course, I could press fraud charges, but by that time
I might be dead, or at least impoverished from the quack's bills.
I don't really care in principle whether the government or a private group
does the credentialling itself. But I want the government to enforce it
ahead of time, not ex post facto when it may be too late.
Of course, if multiple private groups do the credentialling, I might not
want to have to become an authority on WHICH private groups to trust.
So I might want the government to approve the private credentialling
groups. But that is another issue.
Rick McGeer
Sorry, no mention at all in Kennedy, Hirshleifer or Lispey, Sparks & Steiner.
Couldn't find my copies of Alchian & Allen or Samuelson. Can you give me a
reference?
>This law, although flawed, was not altogether irrational. The problem is
>that ALL economical have limits on their application. The law of markets
>says that if an abundance of a product emerges, then new uses are found,
>and hereby the market for the product increases.
That is a very different thing. In this case, the product is adapted to
meet previously unmet demands.
The difference is subtle enough that I can understand how someone could make
this sort of mistake. Demands exist for abstract quantities: things that
we group collectively as "the quality of life". Demands arise for products
as they meet one or more aspects of that abstraction. What's the difference
between that and Piotr's formulation? In practical terms, very little: however,
Piotr's formulation carries with it an often-heard, and quite incorrect,
implication about producers generating demands for their product, which in turn
implies that consumers behave irrationally. And that is very wrong.
>Rick cannot think of an instance in which demand has arisen in response
>to a supply.
>************************************************************************
>*Since my reading list includes noted nitwits such as Galbraith, *
>*I can think, unlike others, who are learned in reputable schools. *
>*Notabene, I was listening to my nitwits in MIT, not PSU. Regretfully *
>*enough, I rely more on disreputable sources like history books, Wall *
>*Street Journal and Fortune than on textbooks of economics. *
>************************************************************************
If you believe a word of the garbage that Galbraith pumps out (unquantified
theories, no mathematical models, lots of hand-waving) then you haven't
thought about it much. Read Friedman On Galbraith for a point-by-point
summary on the experiments done to test Galbraith's theories.
History books? Fortune or the WSJ? Popularizers like Galbraith? These are
truly not reputable sources, at least for economics. Suppose I told you
that I relied on Carl Sagan, Popular Mechanics and Omni for my scientific
information, as opposed to physics texts? What would you then think of the
physical theories I presented in my postings?
>As an example, if an abundance of small computers emerges, one uses
>them instead of typewriters, calculators, file cabinets etc.
Again, the demand for computers is merely an instance of a demand for
information -- that demand was always there. Computers currently are
the best tools for meeting it.
>One may even invent uses, were never heard about, like flaming on net,
>electronic billboards, programing as a pasttime etc.
>Sugar, coffe, tea etc. were initially used as medicines and spices, once
>abundance of those products appeared, they became staples.
>Before their abundance, the need for sweetening everything or adding
>foreign substances to water one drinks was barely existent.
But the demand for sweets is in our genes -- it dates from the time when
pre-men learned that sweet berries were safe and bitter berries weren't
(they're either not ripe of poisonous -- in either case they'll make you
sick). Again, THE DEMAND WAS THERE -- it just hadn't been met yet.
>Currently, the law of markets is quoted as an example of limited scope
>of economical laws, and that was exactly the reason I quoted the existence
>of this law.
Indeed. The limits of economic law are well-known: one cannot determine what
people's motivations are, one can only deduce them, partially, from their
behavior.
>But you pulled my remarks out of context quite mercilessly.
If I have, I apologize. But the article is there, for everyone to read.
>The argument which I opposed was as follows: if there is a need (like
>helping schisophrenics), free market (if unhibited) will supply help.
>The claim was that the law of supply and demand applies here.
>I claim it to be nonsense. But instead to argue with that, you prefer
>to advise me to repeat my sophomore education. Since you are closer
>(I presume, sorry if not true) to your sophomore year, may you please
>explain how this law will apply here? Perhaps the price of a schisophrenic
>will go down?
Certainly. If there are a large number of untreated schizophrenics around
(note spelling, Piotr), one presumes that they or their friends and
relatives will desire that they be treated: cured if possible, controlled
if not. Even strangers can be relied upon for generosity: each year, I
contribute in the neighborhood of $1000 for the research and treatment of
disease, none of which I or any acquaintance have, and most of which I
will almost certainly never get (Parkinson's, Huntington's Chorea,
Alzheimer's, MD...). Indeed, the private foundations for the research and
treatment of the various genetic diseases (which in previous generations
would have killed their sufferers at birth) are an excellent study in
exactly how this occurs.
>Seriously, that was a classical solution of this problem: shisophrenics
>were werehoused in quite inexpensive, if not inhuman, fashion. That may
>be a "free market solution", but I do not buy it as a preferred one.
>Now you say that these were the abuses of the state monopoly on
>psychiatric care for the not wealthy.
I didn't say that. But remember the time. Neither the technology nor the
societal wealth was there to do much better. Do we, now, do better by our
unfortunates, given the wealth we have? If you think we do, come look at
the streets of Berkeley sometime.
>There is major flaw in applying the laws of economy to society
>in general.
Sorry, I don't buy that. Dr. David Friedman defines economics as the study
of human behavior that begins with the presumption that people have objectives
and behave rationally in an attempt to achieve their objectives. If you
accept that definition, as I do, then you're forced to agree that economics
is the study of a much broader field than the flow of commodities. If you
don't, then you should be prepared to describe which aspects of human behavior
economics predicts inadequately. I can give you a hand there, but as it
happens I tend to believe that those areas beyond the obit of economics are
as fundamentally unknowable as those beyond the obit of physics. And if the
answer to some question is fundamentally unknowable, then I really don't care
what the answer is.
>The most general law is that the market has a tendency
>toward equilibrium: the demand stimulates the prices up, the supply
>stimulates the prices down. Increase of prices may stimulate the
>production, decrease may stimulate removing marginal producers from
>the market. The real problem is that the equilibrium does not imply
>superior fulfillment of social needs.
This is a common statement of leftwingers, and it is completely meaningless.
What are "social needs"? Who sets them? Why are the demands met by the market
not an adequate reflection of the generalized demands of society, if such
things in fact exist? And how do you propose to measure how well or badly
any system of organizing society meets "social needs"? When, or if, you
can answer these questions, then we'll have something to talk about. Until
then, you're just flaming.
>Consider an example. Imagine that hiking, picknicking, hunting and fishing
>increase in popularity in Libertaria. The owners of forests, streams
>and mountains invest in building roads, trails, picknic areas etc.
>The prices (especially in attractive areas) increse. The value of the
>land in the attractive areas increases, and so the costs for the new
>providers of the outdoor recreation. As the result, the fees for the
>use of streams, paths, picknic tables, parking etc. go up.
>Finally, only the more wealthy 50% of population may engage in outdoor
>activities.
Actually, this is a good example. You see, there's no particular reason that
the costs of operating a park are in any realtion to the value of the land --
but then, you must know that price is only very indirectly related to cost.
Actually, price is regulated by the interactions of supply and demand. What
you'd see in Libertaria is that prices would rise, due to the increased
popularity of ther activity. But then land would be diverted from other uses
to outdoor recreational activity. The sum total would be that considerably
more land would be used for outdoor activities, there would be more options
for the backpacker, fisherman and hunter, and prices would probably rise
slightly. However, if only the wealthy 50% could afford backpacking, I could
set up a nice little business in offering cheap backpacking and camping trips.
>Currently, by a statist mistake, majority of the attractive areas for
>outdoor activities is public. Thus the fees are either not existent,
>or small (like fishing licences). Everybody may engage in his/her
>favorite form of outdoors. Since the land in question is public,
>it is not a subject of trade, so the costs cannot be influenced by
>the demand.
Baloney. The cost of using anything is determined by the demand. The price
may not be monetary, but it's there: as witness the hours people spend in line
trying to get into Yosemite Valley. The real problem is that the price is
not reflected in revenue to the supplier, which retards his incentive to
provide more lands. Indeed, at the height of the backpacking craze, James
Watt wanted to retrench the supply of public lands devoted to that activity,
the better to put strip-mines in. Don't flame at Watt -- he was appointed by
an elected President and confirmed by an elected Senate. The point is that
in a command system, the guy who gets to give the orders can give any he likes,
whether that has anything to with what people really want. Think about it.
>Let us compare the outcomes of two processes: free market and state
>regulated. In free market, the portion of GNP related to outdoor
>recreation would go up considerably, thus the economic indicators
>would measure an increase in satisfying social needs.
As I mentioned above, I don't believe in "social needs". People have needs.
Society doesn't. And I don't think that economic indicators as aggregate
as GNP (or the Dow, for that matter) measure anything very interesting.
>In the current statist model, GNP barely suggest that public lands
>satisfy a major social need. However, not 50% but 100% has the
>ability of participation.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. If you think that 100% of our population can use our
public lands, think again. In the first place, what happens when everybody
decides to go there at once? (And if you think this is impossible, just try
Muir Woods any weekend, or Yosemite Memorial Day, the 4th of July or Labor
Day). And in the second place, almost all the activities you mention require
transportation to the park, and equipment when you get there. If we take
downhill skiing as the example of an outdoor activity that is practiced on
almost exclusively private property, we note that the cost of the lift is
rivalled by equipment and lodging costs. In fact, a quick survey of the people
that I meet in our national parks shows that the majority are very yuppy --
I don't think that I've ever met a poor individual in a national park. Come
now, Piotr. This is yet another diversion of the upper and middle class
subsidized by the state. One can say what one likes about Marie Antoinette,
but at least she never had the crust to argue that the state should subsidize
her pleasures on the grounds that the poor could then participate. On the
whole, I prefer a thief who admits that he's stealing.
>As a student, I was very happy that
>I could hike in Boston Blue Hills or NH White Mountains without a
>charge. Similarly, not wealthy farmers and workers of my part
>of Pennsylvania are quite happy with the state beaches, hunting
>grounds, streams etc. I doubt that they long to a pure market
>model. Paraphrasing my libertarian friends "they believe in a
>Ponzi scam, they payed taxes for those things and now they are
>deluded to think that they got something for nothing". In fact,
>most of those people never had sophomore course in economics.
>They just do not believe that everything should cost money.
"Most of these people never had a sophomore course in physics: they just
believe that water should run uphill and teakettles should boil when set
on a cake of ice."
Everything does cost money: TANSTAAFL! Only fools, children and leftists
believe otherwise. What you really mean is that "They believe that their
pleasures should be paid for by everyone else". Hell, I agree. It's a
terrific deal, if you can get it. I just don't have the stomach or the gall
to demand it.
-- Rick.
Mike Huybensz
> > to refute Josh's fallacious claims that taxation is theft.
>
> mostly of repeating what he said the first time, so I'll spare everyone
> of re-repeating the carefully documented and outrageously witty refutations
> I made then.
If I repeated myself, it's only because your so-called "refutations" showed
your attention span to be fewer than 5 lines. In addition I made counter
arguments, which you seem to hope will go away if you ignore them.
> Instead, this opening note pretty well sums up Mike's
> position and methodology, so let's examine it more carefully:
Oh yes. Let's look at yours too.
> He adopts his own "interpretation" of libertarianism.
Oh, and of course your interpretation is the one, true, writ in stone,
correct interpretation. Sorry, oh great arbiter of libertarianism, but
your opinion does not designate true libertarianism. If you wish to say
that something isn't libertarianism, then you will need to convince us
of that by argument, not fiat.
> This makes it
> fairly easy to refute; he could, for example, adopt the interpretation
> that "libertarianism really means Marxism" and go on to prove that it
> was a very bad thing. And this is just about what he does.
Is your interpretation "libertarianism is nirvana"? That would make it
very easy to "prove" that it is a very good thing. Neither of us believes
either extreme: my major interest is how big are the warts on libertarianism.
We already can see the warts on democracy, capitalism, etc., because they
are extant systems.
> No matter
> what a libertarian says, or proves, or shows, Mike replies "What you
> really meant was thus-and-so." If we say no, he misunderstood,
> he replies,
> > I understand the libertarian point of view well enough
> >to recognize that they quote their "principles" where convenient but forget
> >about them where inconvenient to their self-serving goals.
Shameless citation out of context here. I was answering your accusation that
I had no interest in understanding libertarianism. You complain in the
first paragraph or two that my responses are long: it's because I include
the context, in the order written.
> All that you understand, Mike, are your own fantastic interpretations.
> I think the part about forgetting principles and self-serving goals
> are projection on your part.
Think what you like. If you expect us to believe you, you need to make
an argument, not an ad-hominem attack. I followed my accusation with
the example of taxes as a contract, which you had rejected without a
libertarian rationale.
> The rest of the opening note is Mike's "interpretation":
>
> > I claim that a "social contract" is a valid libertarian-style contract.]
>
> Let me put it to you as simply as possible: If you think the relationship
> between citizen and State is the same as a the libertarian concept of a
> contract, you do not understand libertarianism at all. Attacking a straw
> man constructed of your own "interpretations" is merely time wasted.
Do you seriously expect us all to take this on your mere authority? Where
is your argument?
> If you want to make valid, cogent criticisms of libertarian thought
> (and mistake me not, such criticisms are possible), you first have to
> build an exegesis of libertarianism WITH WHICH A LIBERTARIAN WOULD
> AGREE; and only then, when you have demonstrated that you are talking
> about the same thing, show the problems, the inconsistencies, and
> whatever else is wrong with it.
Pompous twaddle. First, I need say nothing that a libertarian would agree
with to make a valid criticism of libertarian thought: I could simply go
through some example of libertarian thought and pick out a fallacy of logic
or argument. Second, how the hell do you know that no libertarian would
agree with my interpretation? Or are you going to cry "heretic" and
excommunicate him from the ranks of libertarians and thus retain ideological
purity? You'll quickly enter a "are Catholics Christian" argument.
> >> > You are free to remain within or
> >> >leave the social contract agreed to by you by your residency in the US.
>
> >> Please note the implicit assumption that some condition into which
> >> you were born is considered equivalent to your signing a contract.
>
> >... You can come and go as you will. So why isn't the social
> >contract entirely voluntary?
>
> Suppose I begin spitting on you. You are free to walk away at will.
> Does that mean that the relationship of spitter-spittee was therefore
> a valid contract? Your "interpretation" not only has nothing to do
> with libertarian thought, but is nonsensical.
Your analogy is incomplete. What is the exchange of services that is
comparable to taxes for defense, social work, law enforcement, etc?
With an incomplete and thus incorrect analogy, I'm not surprised that you
perceive nonsense: but it's in your own rhetoric.
> >> I *dare* you to consider--just exercise your imagination, and think
> >> of a world where changing your government were as easy as changing
> >> your grocer.
> >
> >Guess what: we already have most of that. I've seen quite a number of
> >reports from many sources evaluating the relative merits of the 50 states
> >(and numerous nations) in all the categories above. Moving between
> >states is as effortless as you wish.
>
> The point is *exactly* that it is *not* as effortless as I wish. Can't
> you even *conceive* of the idea of changing providers of government
> services without being forced to change all of the other arrangements
> of your life?
You already have that opportunity: there isn't a single government service
that you cannot buy on the market today. Private defense, police, schools,
medicine, insurance, arbitrartion, anything you want. All it costs is
more money, like private schools.
> I really wish you would quit holding up these inane ideas of the
> "social contract" and calling them libertarianism. But even more I
> wish you could understand the real thing.
A gross misrepresentation. Social contracts aren't libertarianism: they
are consistent within it. But even more, I'm glad the "real thing" doesn't
exist.
--
Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
Laura Creighton
There is nothing in Libertaria which says that you shouldn't get the doctor
that you want who went ot the medical school of your choice. All you have to
do is hire *that* doctor rather than some other doctor. What it will do is
to get rid of the fiction that all doctors are created equal, and make it
clear to people that they are going to have to do the same level of research
in selecting a doctor that they already do to select a car or a television.
I consider that a good thing.
Bill Tanenbaum
> >The most general law is that the market has a tendency
> >toward equilibrium: the demand stimulates the prices up, the supply
> >stimulates the prices down. Increase of prices may stimulate the
> >production, decrease may stimulate removing marginal producers from
> >the market. The real problem is that the equilibrium does not imply
> >superior fulfillment of social needs.
> [Rick McGeer]
> What are "social needs"? Who sets them? Why are the demands met by the market
> not an adequate reflection of the generalized demands of society, if such
> things in fact exist? And how do you propose to measure how well or badly
> any system of organizing society meets "social needs"? When, or if, you
> can answer these questions, then we'll have something to talk about. Until
> then, you're just flaming.
Unbelievabe. First, there is the unwarranted ad-hominem characterization
of Piotr Berman as a leftwinger, because he thinks there are social needs.
By that standard, even Ronald Reagan is a left-winger.
Now, about "social needs". How about starting with adequate food,
clothing and shelter for all? Almost every non-libertarian would agree with
these. Conservatives might stop there, liberals might add a few more, while
social democrats would add a lot more. Who decides? Why, the electorate,
through its elected representatives, of course. Since social needs
are not defined in Libertarian economics, they clearly don't exist.
Right, Rick?
Market demand may very well be an adequate reflection of the demands
of the society. But my demand for food won't give me a supply in
Libertaria if I have no money and no job. Guess I will have to hit you
over the head and steal yours. Such is Libertaria.
J Storrs Hall
>policies which they perceive as doing them some good.
Hey wait a minute, that's MY point! Who's been saying all this time
that "people will always act in their own self interest"? It sure
wasn't the statists, who have been saying "people will act selflessly
in the greater interests of society as a whole, if they win a popularity/
tall tales contest." Miraculous how an Evil Capitalist can be turned
into a Saintly Statesman by being given oodles and heaps of coercive
power (case in point: NJ's junior senator).
But there is something more subtle going on. An ideology is not
that which act for INSTEAD of your self interest; it is, to a great
degree, that which you use to interpret events and actions to
determine what IS in your self interest. If one of your interests
is the betterment of society, it will color your ideas of what IS
better for society.
>A previous posting claim the behaviour of FED to cause the crash
>of 1929. They allegedly made a very bold move: decreased money
>supply by one third. Afterwards, there was New Deal, and things
>improved, but only by a little. Libertarians claim that a bold
>lesser-faire policy would be a better cure for the Depression.
This is a marvelous example for the point above. Libertarians
claim that the expenditures of the New Deal made the Depression
WORSE--indeed they are what made it the Great Depression, there
having been lots of little ones before.
>Keynessians claim that only truly massive public expenditures
>could help, as they did indeed during WWII.
...and note carefully: the question of whether this is in their
self interest does not apply here, in historical speculation. The
varying ideologies are being used purely as theories about how
the world works.
>An interesting information. Also, an interesting problem: what caused
>the demise of free market ideology in Scandinavia?
A study of intellectual history will show you that it was around
1900 that socialist ideas began having their greatest impact
on leading political thinkers, though it took time for them to
"trickle down" to the mass of second-hand idea dealers such as
politicians and the press.
--JoSH
J Storrs Hall
>In article <35...@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> jo...@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes:
>> He adopts his own "interpretation" of libertarianism.
>Oh, and of course your interpretation is the one, true, writ in stone,
>correct interpretation. Sorry, oh great arbiter of libertarianism, but
>your opinion does not designate true libertarianism. If you wish to say
>that something isn't libertarianism, then you will need to convince us
>of that by argument, not fiat.
Ok, why don't you go to all the libertarians you know (if any) and
ask them whether my statement, "Taxation is theft, not a contract," or
your statement, "Taxation is a contract, not theft," more closely
reflects libertarian thought.
>> This makes it
>> fairly easy to refute; he could, for example, adopt the interpretation
>> that "libertarianism really means Marxism" and go on to prove that it
>> was a very bad thing. And this is just about what he does.
>
>Is your interpretation "libertarianism is nirvana"? That would make it
>very easy to "prove" that it is a very good thing. Neither of us believes
>either extreme: my major interest is how big are the warts on libertarianism.
Bullshit. All you are trying to do is misrepresent libertarianism.
>> No matter
>> what a libertarian says, or proves, or shows, Mike replies "What you
>> really meant was thus-and-so." If we say no, he misunderstood,
>> he replies,
>> > I understand the libertarian point of view well enough
>> >to recognize that they quote their "principles" where convenient but forget
>> >about them where inconvenient to their self-serving goals.
>
>Shameless citation out of context here. ...
Since everyone reading my message had just read yours in the original,
I trust no one was fooled...
>> > I claim that a "social contract" is a valid libertarian-style contract.]
>>
>> Let me put it to you as simply as possible: If you think the relationship
>> between citizen and State is the same as a the libertarian concept of a
>> contract, you do not understand libertarianism at all. Attacking a straw
>> man constructed of your own "interpretations" is merely time wasted.
>
>Do you seriously expect us all to take this on your mere authority? Where
>is your argument?
Actually I do expect people to believe me, when I say what I hold to be
basic libertarian principles, that they are indeed basic libertarian
principles. I expect people to claim that those principles might be
wrong, but I never expected someone to say, as you did, "No, those
aren't basic libertarian principles, libertarian principles are just
the opposite."
>> If you want to make valid, cogent criticisms of libertarian thought
>> (and mistake me not, such criticisms are possible), you first have to
>> build an exegesis of libertarianism WITH WHICH A LIBERTARIAN WOULD
>> AGREE; and only then, when you have demonstrated that you are talking
>> about the same thing, show the problems, the inconsistencies, and
>> whatever else is wrong with it.
>
>Pompous twaddle. First, I need say nothing that a libertarian would agree
>with to make a valid criticism of libertarian thought: I could simply go
>through some example of libertarian thought and pick out a fallacy of logic
>or argument.
Once upon a time, Mike was called on to make a structural analysis of
an airplane wing from the blueprint. "Garbage!" he said, "everyone
knows that wood can't sustain loads like that."
"But look here!" the engineer replied. "It says ALUMINUM right here
on the blueprint."
"My interpretation of engineering diagrams is that A-L-U-M-I-N-U-M
spells 'wood'," Mike said.
"Aw come on," the engineer complained. "At least you have to agree
on what the diagram says before you can do a valid analysis of it."
"Pompous twaddle!" is Mike's devastating reply. "I need say nothing
that an engineer would agree with to make a valid criticism of this
blueprint: I simply go through some subassembly and pick out a fallacy
of materials. This strut, for example, is made of bone china."
At this point, the engineer picks up the strut, made of titanium,
and brains Mike with it...
--JoSH
Charley Wingate
>Bill Tanenbaum says:
The problem with this is that in fact people aren't well enough informed to
judge in general, and that changes in reputation generally lag changes in
actuality considerably, often being completely unrelated to reality. A
person living in rural Tennessee often does not have the resources available
to find out whether the slick young man is really from Harvard, as he claims
to be.
Charley Wingate
Laura Creighton
Bill Tannenbaum
I don't really care in principle whether the government or a
private group does the credentialling itself. But I want the
government to enforce it ahead of time, not ex post facto when
it may be too late. Of course, if multiple private groups do
the credentialling, I might notwant to have to become an
authority on WHICH private groups to trust. So I might want
the government to approve the private credentialling groups.
There are frauds passing themselves off as doctors right now. That there
are governments does not prevent this. If you like the current doctors,
all you have to do is only accept AMA accredited doctors. Why do you believe
that having the government approve the private credentialling groups is
going to do anything above and beyond only going to AMA registered doctors?
Mike Huybensz
> gone to medical school, you would ask. If you didn't get a
> satisfactory answer, you could go elsewhere. The only role the
> government would play is that if the answer you got were a lie,
> you could press fraud charges.
When you are struck by a car, I will be happy to bring you to the nearest
medical practicioner I can find. If he specializes in acupuncture or
voodoo, well, you should have asked.
The fact is, that people frequently need immediate medical attention, in
situations where we are coerced by circumstances, where we cannot practically
choose. For those circumstances, I want regulation. Either specific
certification for emergencies, or a more general regulation.
--
Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
Bill Tanenbaum
> There is nothing in Libertaria which says that you shouldn't get the doctor
> that you want who went ot the medical school of your choice. All you have to
> do is hire *that* doctor rather than some other doctor. What it will do is
> to get rid of the fiction that all doctors are created equal, and make it
> clear to people that they are going to have to do the same level of research
> in selecting a doctor that they already do to select a car or a television.
>
> I consider that a good thing.
OK, I can research my personal physician's credentials. What happens, however,
when I need emergency medical care, or if I get sick when away from home.
I want to know that all practicing doctors, not just mine, have met some
minimal competency standards. State liscensing is not perfect in this
regard, but it is better than nothing.
Piotr Berman
I do not consider that a good thing. When I am ill, I do not have the time
to look for a doctor, certainly not as much of time as in the case of a car.
Also, the potential damage of a wrong choice is much larger.
You assume that a citizen of Libertaria has a lot of information and
sophistication. He/she decides without help of the state whether
doctors are good, whether banks/insurance companies have good financial
standing, whether a given ingredient of some food you are want to eat
may be harmful, etc. Before the age of state regulations, citizens
were never sure of those things, and frequently they were paying
dearly for this.
Piotr Berman
Robert A. Weiler
Keywords:
In article <36...@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> jo...@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes:
{ >> = P. Berman }
>>An interesting information. Also, an interesting problem: what caused
>>the demise of free market ideology in Scandinavia?
>
>A study of intellectual history will show you that it was around
>1900 that socialist ideas began having their greatest impact
>on leading political thinkers, though it took time for them to
>"trickle down" to the mass of second-hand idea dealers such as
>politicians and the press.
>
>--JoSH
This reply begs the question, which is
How is it that the people of Scandinavia (and the rest of Western Europe, and
the US ) allowed themselves to be decieved into accepting democratic socialism
when it was clearly contrary to their best interests?
Bob Weiler.
Bill Richard
Note: This is STella Calvert, not frog or wjr. I'm a guest here.
In article <7...@cybvax0.UUCP> m...@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
>
>When you are struck by a car, I will be happy to bring you to the nearest
>medical practicioner I can find. If he specializes in acupuncture or
>voodoo, well, you should have asked.
>
>The fact is, that people frequently need immediate medical attention, in
>situations where we are coerced by circumstances, where we cannot practically
>choose. For those circumstances, I want regulation. Either specific
>certification for emergencies, or a more general regulation.
>--
No, no, no! I will be carrying (probably on the back of my medicalert
necklace) a toll-free number to notify my medicare plan that I am in need of
service. That plan will have some qualified (by my standards) personnel on
the scene as soon after I call (or you as my agent) as I am willing to pay
for. Response time is important. So is quality of care. I'll pay for both,
and make it easy (dial 1 100 MED HELP) for you to carry out my wishes. But I
will have chosen the flavor of medical care I want before I need it. If you
find me without my tag, I will possibly suffer for my error as you take me to
the brand of doctor you think best, so be assured, I will be wearing that tag.
I will also be paying, in my premiums, for the right to call my plan if I
encounter a John Doe who does not appear to have medical coverage.
STella Calvert
(guest on ...!decvax!frog!wjr)
Every man and every woman is a star.
Laura Creighton
>
>The problem with this is that in fact people aren't well enough informed to
>judge in general, and that changes in reputation generally lag changes in
>actuality considerably, often being completely unrelated to reality. A
>person living in rural Tennessee often does not have the resources available
>to find out whether the slick young man is really from Harvard, as he claims
>to be.
Okay, it sounds to me like there is a market for doctor-verification here.
The prospective patients will want this and the doctors will want this a
great deal. So someone will set up a doctor-verification agency. (Actually,
it will probably be more general than just doctor verification -- in
Libertaria this problem is going to crop up again and again.) It will
be constrained to be honest by the same constraints that make the AMA
(or Consumer Reports, or a high-minded public official) honest -- because
it will be staffed by people who are genuinely concerned with the problem,
because it will be staffed by people who are honoroable, because it will
loose all its customers if it prints lies and because people will sue it
for fantastic sums of money if it doesn't.
Mike Huybensz
> No, no, no! I will be carrying (probably on the back of my medicalert
> necklace) a toll-free number to notify my medicare plan that I am in need of
> service. That plan will have some qualified (by my standards) personnel on
> the scene as soon after I call (or you as my agent) as I am willing to pay
> for. Response time is important. So is quality of care. I'll pay for both,
> and make it easy (dial 1 100 MED HELP) for you to carry out my wishes. But I
> will have chosen the flavor of medical care I want before I need it. If you
> find me without my tag, I will possibly suffer for my error as you take me to
> the brand of doctor you think best, so be assured, I will be wearing that tag.
If you are rich enough to afford that sort of medical service, you can buy it
right now. The only thing that might make it slightly more expensive is
that you still need real doctors.
People who can't afford high medical premiums (many plans cost about $2000 a
year) will still have difficulty.
Assuming a real libertaria, then your flavor of medicine is quite likely to be
Dr. Smith's Astrological Aura Manipulation. Once you remove medicine and
medical practice from regulation, you end up with the full spectrum of
snake oil and other fraud, only now with better advertising. Look at all
the people who use fraudulent (unregulated and sometimes lethal) diet
plans. Advertising dollars generate much better profits than research or
training dollars, and advertising reaches a much larger audience than product
comparisons. If you were brought up within a libertaria, bombarded with
propaganda and counterpropaganda, with no statistics you could trust,
you would probably pick a popular, well advertised quackery. After all,
it would probably be cheaper than the best medicine. Kidney machines too
expensive? Oh, then they're bad for the aura. Pills cheap? They brighten
the aura. And let's not forget the addictive "health" prescriptions,
whose ingredients need not be divulged. But wait, you need psychic
surgery for your muffler bearing (oops, that was the "doctor"'s previous
employment.)
> I will also be paying, in my premiums, for the right to call my plan if I
> encounter a John Doe who does not appear to have medical coverage.
Very generous of you. I'm sure that your provider will provide enough
disincentives to reign your generosity in, and thus prevent your
distribution of medical services to everyone in libertaria.
--
Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
Bill Tanenbaum
> private group does the credentialling itself. But I want the
> government to enforce it ahead of time, not ex post facto when
> it may be too late. Of course, if multiple private groups do
> the credentialling, I might notwant to have to become an
> authority on WHICH private groups to trust. So I might want
> the government to approve the private credentialling groups.
> There are frauds passing themselves off as doctors right now. That there
> are governments does not prevent this. If you like the current doctors,
> all you have to do is only accept AMA accredited doctors. Why do you believe
> that having the government approve the private credentialling groups is
> going to do anything above and beyond only going to AMA registered doctors?
1)Granted that governmental policing does not guarantee the absence of frauds.
Governmental policing does not guarantee the absence of murder either, but
we all think government should try.
2)In the absence of governmental credentialling of physicians, a situation
might arise where there were lots of small credentialling organizations, and
no generally recognized large ones. (The extreme, albeit unlikely, example
of this would be each doctor having his own organization to credential himself.)
Then the consumer's problem of judgeing physicians would be replaced by an
equally difficult one of judgeing credentialling organizations, and
credentialling would become useless. In such a case, I would want the
government to step in and either do the credentialling itself, or do the
equivalent and credential the credentiallers.
Unlike libertarians, who can always predict the exact consequences of every
libertarian experiment with unerring accuracy, I don't know whether such
a situation would occur in practice in the absence of government credentialling.
I suspect, however, that it is a possibility.
Charley Wingate
Will it? If corruption is everywhere, then why not here as well? And
what's going to prevent the appearance of phony certification companies?
What bothers me more is that this governmental function has simply moved to
a new location where it is even less accessible to pressure from ordinary
folk. The power that was wielded by the government through this function
still remains; only now it is in the hands of a board of trustees, who
aren't necessarily going to be responsible but to a few people (and
certainly for different ends).
Charley Wingate
Andrew Koenig
> to look for a doctor, certainly not as much of time as in the case of a car.
> Also, the potential damage of a wrong choice is much larger.
> You assume that a citizen of Libertaria has a lot of information and
> sophistication. He/she decides without help of the state whether
> doctors are good, whether banks/insurance companies have good financial
> standing, whether a given ingredient of some food you are want to eat
> may be harmful, etc. Before the age of state regulations, citizens
> were never sure of those things, and frequently they were paying
> dearly for this.
They still are. Regulations or not, half of all doctors are below
the median! There is NOTHING you can ever do to change this!
And regulations that allow physicians to avoid competing with
each other make it easier, not harder, for an incompetent to stay
in business.
Mike Huybensz
I don't think this would work for the majority of people, and I think
Charley is right, popular judgement about medicine is unrealistic.
Consider diet plans for example. They are unregulated. Is there a diet-plan
verification agency (public or private)? Well, there's no shortage of
sound medical advice about the dangers of diet plans, and what works.
Do people heed it? No. They need only ask their doctors, but instead
they prefer to dream, and make the diet industry one of the largest food-
related industries in America.
Why are people so foolish? Got me. However, they are bombarded with
outrageous advertising claims continually. And it doesn't pay anyone to
advertise that something doesn't work.
Remove the restrictions on medical practice, and you open up a huge can
of worms of this sort. People will choose the quack who makes them feel
best about their medical service; because he tells them "yes, take that
drug", because he makes outrageous claims for their health if they follow
his advice, because he tells them their aura gets better and better every
time they visit. And how could anyone sue for malpractice, without some
implicit standard of medical practice? "You didn't diagnose that cancer!"
"That wasn't a cancer, it was an evil spirit, and the patients will wasn't
strong enough. I can't cure everybody."
--
Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
Peter da Silva
otiating his:
> > > You are free to remain within or
> > >leave the social contract agreed to by you by your residency in the US.
> >
> > Please note the implicit assumption that some condition into which
> > you were born is considered equivalent to your signing a contract.
> > Mr. Huybenz might as well have said "You are free to remain within
> > or leave the contract of servitude agreed to by you by your being black."
> > (to leave by the same means, altering the condition of your birth).
>
> I think I'm going to treasure a number of your responses (like the above
> paragraph) that I'm answering here, because they are precisely the kinds
> of responses I've given you as examples of unjustness of libertaria.
>
> Let's put aside (for the moment) the problem of new citizens (which
> hypothetical libertarias don't seem to handle well.) You are now an
> adult. You can come and go as you will. So why isn't the social
> contract entirely voluntary?
In the absence of a libertaria to emigrate to you can't regard
the social contract as voluntary. There does not exist the option of
negotiating with your feet that you seem to assume. I have come to the
states because it is the nearest approach to a free society that I have
been able to find.
It is interesting to note that whenever a Libertaria attempts to form, for
example in southern California, it gets squashed by the state which insists
on enforcing the social contract on a group of people who have unanimously
rejected it. This happens to both left-wing and right-wing Libertaria.
> Guess what: we already have most of that. I've seen quite a number of
> reports from many sources evaluating the relative merits of the 50 states
> (and numerous nations) in all the categories above. Moving between
> states is as effortless as you wish. Moving between many nations is only
> a little more difficult.
Speaking as one who has recently moved between nations, let me just note that
moving between nations is an extremely difficult task even for a country as
free as this. I would like to suggest you try it some time.
> But keep in mind that the provider of services
> should not be coerced into accepting you as a customer for one of their
> social contracts. If they don't like your race or nationality or religion
> or language or job, they should be able to arbitrarily refuse to make a
> contract with you. So you mustn't complain if you cannot get to be a
> resident or citizen of any particular nation.
And what happened to "free and equal" partners?
> > Try taking your own words at face value, Mike. What if government
> > really *were* a matter of voluntary contract? If you find it
> > impossible to say what you mean, have a go at meaning what you say.
>
> In the US and a number of other nations, government effectively is a
> matter of voluntary contract (for adults.) You still haven't shown me
> any evidence to the contrary.
Try renegotiating your social contract by any means, and see how voluntary it
really is.
Rick McGeer
>> >[Piotr Berman]
>> >The most general law is that the market has a tendency
>> >toward equilibrium: the demand stimulates the prices up, the supply
>> >stimulates the prices down. Increase of prices may stimulate the
>> >production, decrease may stimulate removing marginal producers from
>> >the market. The real problem is that the equilibrium does not imply
>> >superior fulfillment of social needs.
>-------
>> [Rick McGeer]
>> This is a common statement of leftwingers, and it is completely meaningless.
>> What are "social needs"? Who sets them? Why are the demands met by the market
>> not an adequate reflection of the generalized demands of society, if such
>> things in fact exist? And how do you propose to measure how well or badly
>> any system of organizing society meets "social needs"? When, or if, you
>> can answer these questions, then we'll have something to talk about. Until
>> then, you're just flaming.
>--------
>Unbelievabe. First, there is the unwarranted ad-hominem characterization
>of Piotr Berman as a leftwinger, because he thinks there are social needs.
>By that standard, even Ronald Reagan is a left-winger.
C'mon. I hardly think Piotr is terribly upset at being called a leftwinger,
for two reasons: (1) I didn't (saying that man makes "a common statement
[made by] leftwingers" is *not* the same as saying that he is a leftwinger,
though I guess the implication is clear, if not directly intended; and (2)
since Piotr has been making the case for social welfarism for about the last
eight months, the characterization is hardly unfair. But so what? The line
merely indicated that I'd heard this one before, and didn't believe it then
and don't believe it now. It's an opinion most often heard from lefties:
"social needs" rarely comes trippingly to the Tory's tongue.
> Now, about "social needs". How about starting with adequate food,
>clothing and shelter for all?
I'll agree that each person needs these things: I won't agree that that makes
them "social needs". Can anyone define this beast for me, as opposed to giving
me examples?
>Almost every non-libertarian would agree with
>these.
Evidence?
>Conservatives might stop there, liberals might add a few more, while
>social democrats would add a lot more. Who decides? Why, the electorate,
>through its elected representatives, of course.
Well, the Southern electorate through the first half of the 19th century
decided that slaves were a social need. Then they decided that the social
needs of blacks were a hell of a lot less than the social needs of whites.
The Germans decided in the thirties that glomming onto most of Europe was a
social need, but that Jews definitely weren't. The history of democracies
makes me less than sanguine about their future: I'm more than a little
inclined to agree with the New York State Judge who said that "No man's
life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session".
Few candidates in this nation call for sacrifice for the common good. Most
promise their constituents plunder at the expense of their non-constituents.
>Since social needs
>are not defined in Libertarian economics, they clearly don't exist.
First, there is only economics, not Libertarian economics, or Marxist
economics, or socialist economics. And, second, things which can't be
quantified don't exist, at least for the purposes of rational discussion.
Until we can define this commodity in a way we can measure it -- so we can
talk about facts, instead of opinions -- then we're just flaming. And
definitions that depend on plebiscites are a guarantee of flaming.
> Market demand may very well be an adequate reflection of the demands
>of the society. But my demand for food won't give me a supply in
>Libertaria if I have no money and no job. Guess I will have to hit you
>over the head and steal yours. Such is Libertaria.
The notion that charity would be dead in Libertaria is amusing and entirely
without foundation. Most of the major charitable organizations in this country
started during the late 19th Century, when there was no welfare. Even now,
with ruinous taxation sapping people's incomes, charitable giving is very high.
Do you honestly believe that your fellowman is so selfish that he won't
contribute to help those in need? And if you do, then why do you trust his
nobility at the ballot box? The implications of your note seem to be that man
is inherently selfish on his own, inherently just and generous en masse. I
know of no evidence for this claim, nor any reason why it should be true. Can
you offer me either of these?
-- Rick.
Mike Huybensz
> > Let's put aside (for the moment) the problem of new citizens (which
> > hypothetical libertarias don't seem to handle well.) You are now an
> > adult. You can come and go as you will. So why isn't the social
> > contract entirely voluntary?
>
> In the absence of a libertaria to emigrate to you can't regard
> the social contract as voluntary. There does not exist the option of
> negotiating with your feet that you seem to assume. I have come to the
> states because it is the nearest approach to a free society that I have
> been able to find.
One has no choice but to make SOME social contract, just as one has no
choice but to eat. (The alternatives lead to the same result.) Your
choice of which social contract is essentially free (sorry I wasn't clearer.)
Libertaria would just be another form of social contract, putatively with
lower overhead and simpler rules.
> It is interesting to note that whenever a Libertaria attempts to form, for
> example in southern California, it gets squashed by the state which insists
> on enforcing the social contract on a group of people who have unanimously
> rejected it. This happens to both left-wing and right-wing Libertaria.
This is the same as the free-market monopolistic practice of underselling
invaders of your local monopoly at the point of entry. The only difference
is that power is the currency. In order to compete in the free market of
government services, libertaria must be able to assert power: else it will
be vulnerable to assimilation. The same as a small business forced to sell
out to a too successful large competitor.
> > Guess what: we already have most of that. I've seen quite a number of
> > reports from many sources evaluating the relative merits of the 50 states
> > (and numerous nations) in all the categories above. Moving between
> > states is as effortless as you wish. Moving between many nations is only
> > a little more difficult.
>
> Speaking as one who has recently moved between nations, let me just note that
> moving between nations is an extremely difficult task even for a country as
> free as this. I would like to suggest you try it some time.
There are usually costs involved in changing providers of services. Uncoerced
choice isn't necessarily free of cost. Take for example the replacement of
one employee by another. Usual costs include departure costs (X weeks of
notice, other contractual matters), costs of finding and interviewing new
candidates, moving expenses, training time, and the learning curve.
> > But keep in mind that the provider of services
> > should not be coerced into accepting you as a customer for one of their
> > social contracts. If they don't like your race or nationality or religion
> > or language or job, they should be able to arbitrarily refuse to make a
> > contract with you. So you mustn't complain if you cannot get to be a
> > resident or citizen of any particular nation.
>
> And what happened to "free and equal" partners?
Am I a free and equal partner of McDonalds when I go in for a hamburger?
What if I ask them for a steak, and they refuse to cooperate? Are you
suggesting that they should be coerced into the provision of steaks, when
they have determined that they can maximize their profits with their current
menu?
So why should any state be coerced into granting you (as a voluntary immigrant)
any status that it doesn't wish to grant you?
> > In the US and a number of other nations, government effectively is a
> > matter of voluntary contract (for adults.) You still haven't shown me
> > any evidence to the contrary.
>
> Try renegotiating your social contract by any means, and see how voluntary it
> really is.
I could emigrate to another nation tomorrow. Upon changing my citizenship
(by renunciation or accepting other citizenship), I can cut any claims to
taxes on my future earnings, conscription, or other requirement by the US
government.
--
Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
Rick McGeer
>
>>"political reality" Isn't that an oxymoron? :-) Besides, government is not
>>a source of wealth. Unlike uncles, government cannot generate wealth; it can
>>give only what it takes from people who produce.
>
>That is false. Wealth is created by the re-organization of things
>(the reduction of entropy, if you like).
When I took physics, I was taught that entropy always increased. When I took
economics, I was taught that the only way to increase wealth was to produce:
and that generally takes labor. Oh, economists will argue that one can get
some factors to produce more than they did before, but the way to do this is
to remove artificial barriers to production. Hint: what is the most prominent
barrier to production or exchange?
>Government most definitely
>can aid in such organization.
A Canadian says this? After 15 years of Trudeau? TO see how government --
your government, formerly mine -- "aids" such a reorganization, read "The
Sorcerer's Apprentice", or how Trudeau and Jack Austin together bankrupted
Calgary in the midst of an oil boom.
>Whether it is the most efficient way
>of doing so is a different story, but to regard government as only
>a transfer medium for existing wealth is like seeing a painting as
>a transfer medium for oil and pigment.
No one regards government as a transfer medium for existing wealth, unless
you think of a black hole as a "transfer medium".
Socialism Delenda Est,
Rick.
Rick McGeer
The point is, it's their bodies and their dream. Not your business. The
other point is that there are therapies and drugs currently banned in the USA,
but permitted elsewhere, which might or might not be succesful. Regulation
discourages experiment and innovation, and hence progress. See "Free To
Choose" for a full discussion of the full costs of health industry regulation.
And, I might add, the size of the diet industry is an effective stimulant to
researchers to develop therapies that do work (as some on the market do).
If you REALLY BELIEVE that the government should certify doctors for the
patients' good, why not permit uncertified doctors to practice? That way,
patients can decide for themselves if they want to be treated by an uncertified
doctor -- and hospitals can decide if they want uncertified doctors on their
payroll. Why this decision should be made in Washington is beyond me.
>
>Why are people so foolish? Got me. However, they are bombarded with
>outrageous advertising claims continually. And it doesn't pay anyone to
>advertise that something doesn't work.
Sure it does! You haven't seen many computer or cleanser adds recently.
>
>Remove the restrictions on medical practice, and you open up a huge can
>of worms of this sort. People will choose the quack who makes them feel
>best about their medical service; because he tells them "yes, take that
>drug", because he makes outrageous claims for their health if they follow
>his advice, because he tells them their aura gets better and better every
>time they visit. And how could anyone sue for malpractice, without some
>implicit standard of medical practice? "You didn't diagnose that cancer!"
>"That wasn't a cancer, it was an evil spirit, and the patients will wasn't
>strong enough. I can't cure everybody."
Good point. But it is their business. And, as for malpractice suits, I don't
see the problem. Welders aren't certified, but you can certainly sue for a
faulty weld. Mike, why don't you get over this nasty itch you have to run
other people's lives?
-- Rick.
Gadfly
> ... Welders aren't certified, but you can certainly sue for a
> faulty weld. Mike, why don't you get over this nasty itch you
> have to run other people's lives?
>
> -- Rick.
Welders *are* certified (in Wisconsin, anyway). You can't get
a job with a shipbuilder unless you've got that certificate.
On the larger issue of government vs. self regulation, I will
admit to some ambivalence. If you are for the latter, as I
assume most libertarians are, then you must wax ecstatic every
time you hear about silly lawsuits, for without govt. intervention
civil court must be one's first and last resort, and there can be,
therefore, no prejudgement as to the seriousness of a suit. On
the other hand, it's perfectly obvious that government regulation
(in practice) introduces as much, if not more corruption than
it alleviates.
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 19 Sep 85 [3ieme Jour Sans-culottide An CXCIII]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7753 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
Laura Creighton
>clothing and shelter for all? Almost every non-libertarian would agree with
>these.
Wrong-o. William F. Buckley Jr., for instance, who takes great pains to
make sure that he is identified as conservative, and not one of those
libertarians would not buy this one. Neither will a good many people
involved in work in the third world because they believe that the population
will always expand so that ehre will always be a level of ``poor'' who are
malnourished and unhoused. If you dump more money into the problem, then
people who are currently dying of starvation (and therefore do not need
housing) will survive and form a new level of poor to be a problem. If you
feed and house them another layer will be found, so unless you implement
strict birth control you will never be able to fix this one.
Note that I am not saying that this view is necessarily correct -- what I am
saying is that it is wrong to assume that all non-libertarians think that food
and shelter should be provided for all. The other thing that is wrong with this
view is that the libertarian objection is not with the ``providing food and
shelter'' but with the TAXING of people in order to provide food and shelter.
> Conservatives might stop there, liberals might add a few more, while
>social democrats would add a lot more. Who decides? Why, the electorate,
>through its elected representatives, of course. Since social needs
>are not defined in Libertarian economics, they clearly don't exist.
>Right, Rick?
social needs are not defined by any economic system, except in that certain
systems are likely to produce a certain type of problem whereas others will
avoid this one. Feudalism gave every lord the obligation to provide shelter
for his vassals and serfs, so there was no particular need for shelter that
was not being met. However, there was a 70+% infant mortality rate and a lot
of malnutrition. The industrial revolution made farming a lot easier and
made it easier to stay alive -- teh infant mortality rate dropped to about 30%
in industrialised countries. Now, of course, the population grew at an
unprecedented rate and bingo -- there is a housing problem. If you simply
killed 40% of children outright, you could stop the housing problem, but this
is not how people want to solve it.
Libertarians do not claim that social needs do not exist -- just that the
state should not be trying to solve social problems and that the people who
are paying to have social ills remedied should get to choose which ills they
are interested in fixing and by which means, and when are they going to be
considered fixed.
> Market demand may very well be an adequate reflection of the demands
>of the society. But my demand for food won't give me a supply in
>Libertaria if I have no money and no job. Guess I will have to hit you
>over the head and steal yours. Such is Libertaria.
>--
>Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
If you have no money anbd no job right now you may be reduced to this. Or you
may have set aside a fund with fellow-workers in order to provide with this
contingency. Or you may have friends or relatives who can lend you money. Or
you may go to charitable organisations. Incidentally, if most people really
do want people to be fed and clothed an sheltered then the YMCA and Goodwill
and such should have a heap of funds in libertaria since people will be donating
like crazy.
What makes you think that the state can do a better job then the Salvation
Army?
J Storrs Hall
>(by renunciation or accepting other citizenship), I can cut any claims to
>taxes on my future earnings, conscription, or other requirement by the US
>government.
Mike's argument: by throwing away his income from sources in this
country, he can prevent the government from stealing part of it.
Well, Mike, if I burn my furniture as firewood it will prevent
your breaking into my house and stealing it. That does not make
your doing so the less theft.
--JoSH