[OT] Re: Socialist SF, To Jim Cambias
David Friedman
Aaron Denney <wno...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> > You are arguing that the Congo Free State was laissez-faire capitalism
> > but undemocratic? I'll agree with the undemocratic part, but I don't see
> > how a system where a government with guns was killing, taxing, and
> > enslaving people counts as capitalism.
>
> It's wonderful to watch libertarians flip-flop between "governments are
> just a set of thugs with big-guns" and "governments (i.e. thugs) would
> be prevented from doing bad things if we all lived in Libertopia."
How about "if governments are doing lots of bad things then we obviously
aren't in a libertarian society?" Do you find that puzzling?
Eric Jarvis
> In article <ddfr-CFFAD1.2...@sea-read.news.verio.net>, David Friedman wrote:
> > In article <MPG.19868d733...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
> > Eric Jarvis <w...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> > It's the pillars of economic freedom that matter, not whether people
> >> > are voting.
> >> >
> >>
> >> been through this one before...you are wrong...you are
> >> clearly provably wrong...the case has been clearly made
> >> within the last few days that you are wrong with a
> >> number of examples (does the Congo Free State ring a
> >> bell?)
> >
> > You are arguing that the Congo Free State was laissez-faire capitalism
> > but undemocratic? I'll agree with the undemocratic part, but I don't see
> > how a system where a government with guns was killing, taxing, and
> > enslaving people counts as capitalism.
>
> It's wonderful to watch libertarians flip-flop between "governments are
> just a set of thugs with big-guns" and "governments (i.e. thugs) would
> be prevented from doing bad things if we all lived in Libertopia."
>
this is the bit I don't understand...if there should have
been controls imposed upon Leopold then what should they
have been?...who should have imposed them?...is there a
reason why he should have been controlled in a way that
others shouldn't?...at precisely which point does the
right for a commercial enterprise to operate profitably
cross the line into murder?
I've got a lot of respect for David's views (unlike the
simplistic nonsense being spouted by some in this
thread)...he's thought about them...they are based on a
lot of knowledge...I actually only differ from them in a
small number of (highly significant) ways...but I still
don't see why some of his definitions of what is
"capitalist", "communist", and how he defines whether
repression is justified, aren't entirely arbitrarily
chosen to reflect the conclusion he wishes to reach
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"Hey Lord don't ask me questions
There ain't no answer in me"
Aaron Denney
Nope. But then reword it to "if thugs are doing lots of bad things then
...", and as I see no mechanism in the most extreme libertarian society
for keeping thugs from doing bad things, it seems as if you've defined
away libertarian societies.
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
William Newman
I won't try to describe or defend David's views on what good policies
would be, or his arguments why they would work as he hopes. However,
I'd like to remark on attempts to disentangle market and non-market
effects (e.g. what is capitalist vs. communist).
It's irreducibly hard to do this exactly. To give one much-discussed
example, I think reasonable people can differ about e.g. to what
extent Japan's successes and failures are attributable to more
market-oriented policies than compable countries, or to less
market-oriented policies than comparable countries, or to different
factors altogether.
Besides that unavoidable uncertainty, all partisans face a temptation
to go beyond reasonable ambiguity into the kind of clueless or
outright dishonest nonsense that you seem to be referring to. I submit
that here the pro-market people in general (and the libertarian
subset, and David in particular) are more sinned against than sinning.
Consider e.g. that
* Newspaper and other accounts routinely take for granted that
tariffs
and other import restrictions naturally benefit the nation
imposing
them, completely ignoring 200+ years of mainstream economic
analysis.
* Classic market-failure examples in economics which have been
variously debunked (qwerty failures, lighthouses, populist version
of the economics of Standard Oil...) or at least had convincing
alternative interpretations offered (various pro-central-planning
interpretations of the Great Depression) are still taught and
reported
as unquestioned truth.
* "Energy deregulation" in California -- complete with price
controls --
was widely reported as a failure of market systems. (Compare e.g.
reporting horrendous government in the People's Democratic
Republic
of Xugglifende as a failure of democracy because the government
was
chosen by election -- complete with prescreening of candidates, so
that you could only vote for El Presidente and his other choices,
one candidate per office.)
* In the conclusion to _Nickeled and Dimed_, after correctly
identifying
housing as one of the key obstacles to living on a low income, the
ever-so-indignant-at-the-plight-of-the-poor author utterly ignores
zoning and other policies[*] which have stopped purpose-built
high-density housing, trailer parks, people renting out rooms of
their homes, people choosing to sleep 10 in a two-bedroom
apartment,
and various semitransient arrangements like hostels and flophouses
(and also cheap transport alternatives like jitneys, to connect
between cheap housing and work and other facilities). Her
argument then solidly established on a foundation of invincible
ignorance or facile dishonesty, she moves contentedly to her
desired conclusion that the market is to blame and should be
reined in. This is as if Marie Antoinette spent a year in the
Paris slums, observing the impact on the poor of policies which
ban cooking with flour except by certified professionals using
at least 21% sugar, 11% butter, and 9% egg, and concluded that
the market wasn't working and so further moves away from a market
system are needed.
Without knowing in what cases you suspect David of shading the truth
to favor his preferred conclusions, it's hard to know, but I'd be
rather surprised to find this level of confusion or willful deception
in his writing.
--
[*] Her summing-up of housing issues, in the "Evaluation" chapter,
begins
The problem of rents is easy for a noneconomist, even a
sparsely-educated low-wage worker, to grasp: it's the market,
stupid. When the rich and poor compete for housing on the open
market, the poor don't stand a chance. The rich can always
outbid them, buy up their tenements or trailer parks, and
replace them with condos, McMansions, golf courses, or whatever
they like.
It concludes in part
When the market fails to distribute some vital commodity, such
as housing, to all who require it, the usual liberal-to-moderate
expectation is that the government will step in and help. We accept
this principle -- at least in a half-hearted and faltering way --
in the case of health care [giving examples of health care
subsidies].
But in the case of housing, the extreme upward skewing of the
market
[referring to an earlier analysis, which I didn't quote, that the
housing problem is caused by the rich becoming more numerous] has
been
Zoning is nowhere mentioned (certainly between the two passages
quoted;
and as far as I know, nowhere in the book), nor any other legal
restrictions on building or occupancy. The _New York Times Book
Review_
summarizes
She is our premier reporter of the underside of capitalism.
In the 18th century, having
indifferent-for-the-consequences-to-the-poor
clueless blindness attributed to you as an offhand remark was a
quotable
criticism of you long after you were otherwise forgotten. In the new
millennium, it's not out of place in your published conclusion after a
year of research leading to a successful and well-reviewed book about
the plight of the poor.:-(:-( You've come a long way, baby...