Left Libertarianism
Shelly Waxman
> Newsgroups: tx.politics,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.gun=
s,talk.politics.drugs
> Subject: Left Libertarianism (was: Re: What do Libertarians want?
> Date: Fri, 20 Oct 95 07:40:56 EST
> Organization: University of Maine at Farmington
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Message-ID: <4681q5$16...@sol.caps.maine.edu>
> References: <45kjuv$g...@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <DGDzs...@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> <45mtkf$5...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <DGFzF1.HsF@ecsva=
x.uncecs.edu> <Pine.SGI. <463
>
> In article <463o9m$m...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, swa...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
> >I didn't say get rid of the Bill of Rights. Why do you think
>
> OK, but a direct democracy with judicial review isn't a completely direct
>
> democracy. But it is superior than just telling people to get on the
>
> internet and vote about anything.
Oh, you could easily have juries of the whole decide cases but there
would be a problem getting them to watch the whole trial. I don't really
understand what direct democracy has to do with the judicial system. The
legislature and judicicial systems are separate.
>
> >representative democracy doesn't take rights away from the minority? We
>
> Without judicial review, either system can be a vehicle of tyranny of the
>
> majority.
>
> >now have a President who was elected by a minority of a minority. If any
>
> The correct term is a "plurality." Most Presidents are elected by a
>
> "minority" of adults eligible to vote (only about 32% voted for Ronald
>
> Reagan, for instance, in 1980). But if people choose not to vote, then they
>
> are basically acquiescing in the decision, aren't they?
No, people choose not to vote because they rightly feel they cannot
change anything. I still like minority of a minority.
>
> >natural rights are ever take away, there is always rebellion as a method
>
> >of reversal.
>
> Theoretically, but practically I doubt that will ever be possible or
>
> necessary in the U.S.
It is necessary. King George probably thought it couldn't happen also.
>
> >>Second: what do you mean by "freedom over slavery"? Are those two extremes
>
> >>all which exists? Could you define those terms?
>
> >Do you understand English? What don't you understand about those terms?
>
> >They are diametrically opposed. I will soon be posting on my web page a
>
> >speech I recently gave which will define what I mean. I will let you know
>
> >when it is up.
It will be up this weekend according to my webmaster, who is very
reliable. The speech is entitled, "Slavery, Freedom and the Law."
>
> The terms as I understand them are inapplicable to this debate. No one has
>
> complete freedom -- we have to follow laws, pay taxes, do things a boss tells
>
> us, etc. No one is a slave though -- slavery involves not having a choice to
>
> change jobs, not keeping any money for yourself, not having control over your
>
> lifestyle, etc. It doesn't seem like either of the two extremes is a
>
> possibility. We're always somewhere in the middle.
We are always in a muddle because we don't see things clearly. One day
there will be a free America. I am using slavery in the sense that we are
slaves of the government. Not in the context you are using it.
>
> My problem with libertarians is that they are very good at seeing how
>
> government limits freedom, but they tend to underestimate how, in a free
>
> market economy, those with resources and power can limit the freedom of the
>
> have-nots. They see only one potential limit on freedom (the government)
>
> when coercion can come from all over the place. That's why I tend towards
>
> what in Europe would be called LEFT LIBERTARIANISM -- the focus is on
>
> maximizing individual freedom, but that often means the necessity of social
>
> welfare programs and regulations on businesses and the powerful in order to
>
> prevent those with power from abusing their power, and help the have nots
>
> have an EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to compete in society.
>
> Left libertarianism opposes much of the social welfare state presently
>
> defined, but also considers liberal libertarianism (i.e., capitalist
>
> libertarianism) as naive and as an apologist for the wealthy.
Scott, I only know one kind of libertarian. One who believes in Freedom.
There are anarchists and minarchists. But no true libertarian can believe
in any aspect of the welfare state. If you want, start your own political
philosopy.
>
--
NEW SAMPLE CHAPTERS about the IRS' attempt to destroy independent
business and how Chicago treated a Vietnam War vet. See, Chapters 8 and
11. FREE chapters added every month. "In the Teeth of the Wind--Memoirs
of a Libertarian Lawyer" is a blockbuster online book.
http://www.libertarian.com/shelly/
Shelly Waxman
Mark Roddy
>>
>> have-nots. They see only one potential limit on freedom (the government)
>>
>> when coercion can come from all over the place. That's why I tend towards
>>
>> what in Europe would be called LEFT LIBERTARIANISM -- the focus is on
>>
>> maximizing individual freedom, but that often means the necessity of social
>>
>> welfare programs and regulations on businesses and the powerful in order to
>>
>> prevent those with power from abusing their power, and help the have nots
>>
>> have an EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to compete in society.
>>
>> Left libertarianism opposes much of the social welfare state presently
>>
>> defined, but also considers liberal libertarianism (i.e., capitalist
>>
>> libertarianism) as naive and as an apologist for the wealthy.
>
>Scott, I only know one kind of libertarian. One who believes in Freedom.
>There are anarchists and minarchists. But no true libertarian can believe
>in any aspect of the welfare state. If you want, start your own political
>philosopy.
>>
>
Historically anarchists are what Scott refers to as Left
Libertarianists. The bubble-headed right wing libertarian ideologues
purged the anarchist from the Libertarian Party back in the early
80's.
scot...@maine.maine.edu
>Oh, you could easily have juries of the whole decide cases but there
>would be a problem getting them to watch the whole trial. I don't really
>understand what direct democracy has to do with the judicial system. The
>legislature and judicicial systems are separate.
Yes, but the point is that direct democracy could easily lead to tyranny of
the majority; if the majority want to take away the right to free speech,
they can do so in direct democracy. Do you really want to risk that? Laws
have passed in places like Switzerland with direct democracy which have
hindered individual rights. That seems unlibertarian, to say the least.
>No, people choose not to vote because they rightly feel they cannot
>change anything. I still like minority of a minority.
People have different reasons for not voting. But I don't see how direct
democracy would change that. I doubt we'd ever get a President who had a
majority of votes from adults in the country in any system.
>It is necessary. King George probably thought it couldn't happen also.
Actually, most Americans wanted to stay with England but George made some
really stupid mistakes (see Barbara Tuchman's "March of Folly" for one of the
best narratives about this). Still, today and then are hardly comparable.
It can make for romantic speculation by some, but not much more.
>We are always in a muddle because we don't see things clearly. One day
>there will be a free America. I am using slavery in the sense that we are
>slaves of the government. Not in the context you are using it.
Well, I'm not a slave of the government. I think you're delving into utopian
thought here. Capitalist utopias are as unrealistic as communist utopias.
The real world is grey and full of compromises and uncertainties.
>Scott, I only know one kind of libertarian. One who believes in Freedom.
>There are anarchists and minarchists. But no true libertarian can believe
>in any aspect of the welfare state. If you want, start your own political
>philosopy.
The fact you know of only one kind of libertarian may say more about your
lack of knowledge of the philosophical debates than something about the real
world. The key is that under liberal or capitalist libertarianism there
would exist the ability (which was used in the industrial revolution to a
large extent) to coerce and exploit workers who due to the structure of the
system had no recourse. Unions could easily be busted. Government needed to
get involved to enhance individual freedom.
Powerful and rich people can limit the freedom of individuals just as
effectively as a government can. As long as that's true, governments will
serve a role to try to equalize opportunity and fight injustice.
Again, I sense that you're being driven by utopian ideals here. While I
don't like to discourage idealists, one has to be practical as well.
-scott
Robert Leone
>From: mro...@wattanuck.mv.com (Mark Roddy)
>Subject: Re: Left Libertarianism
>Date: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 18:03:44 GMT
>Shelly Waxman <swa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Historically anarchists are what Scott refers to as Left
>Libertarianists. The bubble-headed right wing libertarian ideologues
>purged the anarchist from the Libertarian Party back in the early
>80's.
The actual history of the Libertarian Party is that it was founded by people
who broke away from the Republican Party.
What you call "Left Libertarians" are a flavor of Marxist. Marx wrote that
the State would "whither away" in the final stages of Communism, and so you
could say that Marx was an ararchist
The term "Liberal" originally meant (in the 18th century), someone who was in
favor of individual liberty, rather than having a state with arbitrary and
unlimited power. Somewhere along the line the term got stolen by the
Socialists to mean "Welfare Statist". I would prefer that the term
"Libertarian" not get stolen too, otherwise we'll have to coin yet another
word to describe "someone who believes that people should be free to do what
they want, subject to the provision that they do not commit violence or fraud
on others".
A Libertarian is not "Left" or "Right". A Libertarian believes that there
should be no restrictions on what consenting adults can do with each other.
This means no restrictions on adults seeing "pornography" or "obscenity", no
restrictions on sexual activity among consenting adults, and no restrictions
on what chemicals or food items a person can insert into his own body (This is
where Libertarians and the "Right" part company).
A Libertarian also believes that if a person wants to work, and another person
wants to hire him, (even for less than "minimum wage") then the govt should
stay out of it. Libertarians also believe that if a person does NOT want to
hire, work for, rent to, sell to, or buy from another, it's none of the
governments business WHY he or she feels that way, and that if an employer
only wants left-handed Peruvians making widgets for him, then it's not the
government's business to tell him otherwise (This is where Libertarians and
the "Left" part company).
If you call yourself a "Right Libertarian" or "Left Libertarian" because you
only believe in part of the above, then you're either a "Rightist" or a
"Leftist". You're not a Libertarian.
Bob Leone
[insert some clever .sig here, eventually]
scot...@maine.maine.edu
>Historically anarchists are what Scott refers to as Left
>Libertarianists. The bubble-headed right wing libertarian ideologues
>purged the anarchist from the Libertarian Party back in the early
>80's.
Currently Left Libertarian is a term loosely applied to a group of thinkers
(esp. in Europe) who distrust the state but also distrust the excesses of
capitalism. It includes Greens, radical democrats, former capitalist
libertarians, and others who place the freedom of the individual first. That
freedom can be threatened by government, and by powerful and wealthy
non-governmental forces. Captialist libertarianism focuses on the former and
ignores the danger posed by the latter. Socialism and most ideas of Social
Democracy focus on the latter and ignore the danger posed by the former.
-scott
scot...@maine.maine.edu
>What you call "Left Libertarians" are a flavor of Marxist. Marx wrote that
>the State would "whither away" in the final stages of Communism, and so you
>could say that Marx was an ararchist
I'd say Marx was a utopian.
> I would prefer that the term
>"Libertarian" not get stolen too, otherwise we'll have to coin yet another
>word to describe "someone who believes that people should be free to do what
>they want, subject to the provision that they do not commit violence or
>fraud on others".
Well, liberal still means to me a notion of capitalism and individual
liberty. Libertarians are extreme liberals. I know that the pop usage of the
term in American politics is different, but if you do much political
philosophy or comparative politics you'll find that most people still use
liberal the "old fashioned way."
>A Libertarian also believes that if a person wants to work, and another
person
>wants to hire him, (even for less than "minimum wage") then the govt should
>stay out of it. Libertarians also believe that if a person does NOT want to
>hire, work for, rent to, sell to, or buy from another, it's none of the
>governments business WHY he or she feels that way, and that if an employer
>only wants left-handed Peruvians making widgets for him, then it's not the
>government's business to tell him otherwise (This is where Libertarians and
>the "Left" part company).
Exactly -- Left Libertarians argue that:
1) the goal is to have maximum individual freedom
2) allowing capitalism to work as you described will actually lead to a
small oligarchy of wealthy individuals who WITH OR WITHOUT GOVERNMENT
ASSISTANCE can coerce others and limit freedom.
Thus liberal libertarianism (your brand) actually is an excuse for
non-governmental coercion. Capitalist theory in this sense is seen as a
mirror image of Marxian theory -- each posits a utopia IF people operate
according to their theory. Yet people don't, they try to maximize their own
position by any means possible.
Thus government has a role limiting powerful people who might use their
resources and power to coerce, but governments role must be limited to
prevent it from going beyond that. Left Libertarians thus try to promote
equal opportunity (NOT equal outcome like Socialists or some Social
Democrats) and maximum freedom (agreeing with "liberal" libertarians on civil
rights issues.)
These are two potential strains of libertarianism.
>If you call yourself a "Right Libertarian" or "Left Libertarian" because you
>only believe in part of the above, then you're either a "Rightist" or a
>"Leftist". You're not a Libertarian.
Well, what the label means depends upon how it is used. If "left
libertarian" becomes used in political discourse, then that'll be its
meaning. I've also seen the term "radical democracy" used.
-scott
bab
> The actual history of the Libertarian Party is that it was founded by people
> who broke away from the Republican Party.
This is, as I understand it, true, although the LP has broadened itself
somewhat.
> What you call "Left Libertarians" are a flavor of Marxist. Marx wrote that
> the State would "whither away" in the final stages of Communism, and so you
> could say that Marx was an ararchist
This is not true. Marx and the left-anarchists (eg, Bakunin) were bitter
enemies, struggling for leadership of the workers movement of that era.
While they may have had some agreement on what constitutes utopia (in
both cases a classless and stateless society), Marx wanted to increase
the role of the state and the anarchists saw the state as an unnecessary
evil which needed to be destroyed.
I suggest you read the Anarchism FAQ that gets posted here occasionally
(new version just posted recently). It goes into the right/left anarchist
situation pretty well.
Mark Roddy
>In article <DGt11...@mv.mv.com> mro...@wattanuck.mv.com (Mark Roddy) writes:
>>From: mro...@wattanuck.mv.com (Mark Roddy)
>>Subject: Re: Left Libertarianism
>>Date: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 18:03:44 GMT
>
>>Shelly Waxman <swa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Historically anarchists are what Scott refers to as Left
>>Libertarianists. The bubble-headed right wing libertarian ideologues
>>purged the anarchist from the Libertarian Party back in the early
>>80's.
>
>The actual history of the Libertarian Party is that it was founded by people
>who broke away from the Republican Party.
>
Thats fine and dandy. So you are denying that the anarchitst were
purged from the LP in the early 80s?
>What you call "Left Libertarians" are a flavor of Marxist. Marx wrote that
>the State would "whither away" in the final stages of Communism, and so you
>could say that Marx was an ararchist
Emma Goldman is rolling in her grave. anarchist are not Marxists. The
first people the marxists shoot are the anarchists. Just because Marx
posited a future outcome of communism that might resemble an anarchist
society does not make Marxism anarchism. Many anarchists were (or are
if there still are any) opposed to both the authority of the state
government and its close ally the economic government. They also
weren't too fond of private property, the holy grail of
right-libertarianism.
>
>
James A. Donald
> Exactly -- Left Libertarians argue that:
> 1) the goal is to have maximum individual freedom
> 2) allowing capitalism to work as you described will actually lead to a
> small oligarchy of wealthy individuals who WITH OR WITHOUT GOVERNMENT
> ASSISTANCE can coerce others and limit freedom.
A little history, Scott:
What you are calling left libertarianism died in August 1936 when the
leadership of "anarcho socialists" in Catalonia went into coalition
with the Marxists to form a government and institute a centralized
command economy.
They did this because under anarchy without property rights,
everything valuable vanished, and everything nailed down got covered
with garbage, and sometimes human excreta. (George Orwell reported
the staggering mess, and he himself contributed to it, but he does not
seem to see the connection between the garbage and the sell out by the
anarchist leadership.)
Since that time those few who still call themselves "libertarian
socialists" and "libertarian communists" have been fans of a
centralized command economy enforced by totalitarian violence and
brutal terror. They just use even more obscure perversion of the
language to describe their positions than you do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com
James A. Donald
> Currently Left Libertarian is a term loosely applied to a group of thinkers
> (esp. in Europe) who distrust the state but also distrust the excesses of
> capitalism. It includes Greens, radical democrats, former capitalist
> libertarians, and others who place the freedom of the individual first.
I have debated with a several people who claimed to be left
libertarians. Every single one eventually displayed overwhelming
evidence that he was in favor of an all powerful state exerting
detailed and absolute control of every aspect of every persons life,
enforced by brutal terror. For example I would cite some bloodthirsty
totalitarian action from "Blood of Spain", and the guy would reply in
a way that made it clear he had read "Blood of Spain" or some
similarly accurate history book, accepted its account of events in
Catalonia as basically correct, and thought that such measures for
suppressing greed, selfishness, and incorrect thoughts were just fine,
and he found it utterly incomprehensible that I should be shocked by
collectivism imposed by such means.
Indeed when I described house to house searches for forbidden books
with on the spot execution, public book burnings, sexual exploitation
of female workers bound to their place of work, and so on and so forth
I met the same blank wall of incredulous incomprehension that Scott
Erb has displayed whenever I attempted to explaint the concept of
natural rights to him.
One of these left libertarians explained to me, with lordly air of
someone explaining to the profoundly ignorant (very similar to Scott's
air), that "disappearance" means right wingers making left wingers
vanish without due process. The word does not apply to left wingers
making right wingers vanish without due process.
Mark D. Head
> Exactly -- Left Libertarians argue that:
> 1) the goal is to have maximum individual freedom
> 2) allowing capitalism to work as you described will actually lead to a
> small oligarchy of wealthy individuals who WITH OR WITHOUT GOVERNMENT
> ASSISTANCE can coerce others and limit freedom.
Scott, I'm a latecomer to this particular thread....
A "left libertarian" seems to be necessarily an oxymoron. The
following comment is offered with the explicit caveat that I haven't
taken any time as I write this to consider the implications of my
"off-the-cuff" comment about this "left libertarian" concept:
It seems to me that a governmental system truly adhering to
"libertarian" concepts could not easily result in an oligarchy... I
submit this thought because, at least at first blush, it seems
unlikely that an "oligarchical" group could prevail upon a
"libertarianist," and thus disinterested, government to enact legal
assurances that such oligarchically-minded group would find
sufficientently supportive of their efforts to control commerce....?
Am I making any sense here?
This is not to favor a right-wing, heirachically-inclined group who
might also seek effectively oligarchical control....
It also seems probable to me that, as the power implied in knowledge
devolves in both scale and scope, individuals will be gaining "real
power" on an almost week-to-week basis, and in statistically
significant measure. If I'm right, the scenario points away from
"centralized groups" even having the capaciy to usurp or appropriate
power--either economic or political.... If the scale of power
devolves, the individual possessed of knowledge--and proficiency in
the access and understanding of such--emerges as a power to be
reckoned with.
What do you think?
Regards,
Mark
* TANSTAAFL! *
--------------------------------------------------
| "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." |
--------------------------------------------------
bab
> Since that time those few who still call themselves "libertarian
> socialists" and "libertarian communists" have been fans of a
> centralized command economy enforced by totalitarian violence and
> brutal terror. They just use even more obscure perversion of the
> language to describe their positions than you do.
A sweeping statement which is either a deliberate lie or a sign of gross
ignorance. Sorry to be blunt. It's your business if you want to argue
against left libertarian ideas, but lying about them goes beyond what I
consider acceptable.
I was pretty familiar with the libertarian left in the US a while back
(late 70's/early 80's) and knew of no person or group who fits this
description. There were other problems with left-libertarians but advocacy
of centralism of any sort, of a command economy, of totalitarianism, or of
brutal terror are not among them.
The only violence I can recall hearing discussed was occasional idle talk
about what should be done to scabs in a strike situation, of which, to my
knowledge, nothing ever came. It was similar to talk in some
right-libertarian circles about doing violence to IRS agents -- an
exercise in macho blowhardry. Most left libertarians denounced violence
except in defense of ones self or community, which is about the same as
right-libertarians.
Of course, while I read pretty widely in the left-libertarian press, was
a member of several organizations, traveled widely in those circles and
was on the board of a leading left-libertarian organization, it is
possible that I failed to pick up on the authoritarian wing of the
left-libertarian movement in the US.
So would you post the names of some of the left libertarian organizations
or publications that you know of which advocated a "centralized command
economy enforced by totalitarian violence and brutal terror"? Or, would
you retract your statement above?
For those who want a pretty balanced discussion of left- and right-
libertarianism, I suggest reading the Anarchism FAQ which is posted to
various libertarian and anarchist newsgroups periodically.
James A. Donald
>> Since that time those few who still call themselves "libertarian
>> socialists" and "libertarian communists" have been fans of a
>> centralized command economy enforced by totalitarian violence and
>> brutal terror. They just use even more obscure perversion of the
>> language to describe their positions than you do.
b...@io.com (bab) wrote:
>A sweeping statement which is either a deliberate lie or a sign of gross
>ignorance. Sorry to be blunt. It's your business if you want to argue
>against left libertarian ideas, but lying about them goes beyond what I
>consider acceptable.
I oversimplified when I said "libertarian socialism" died on August
1936. On August 1936 the leadership abandoned libertarian socialism.
Word of this is still percolating down to the followers, but by today
it seems to have reached most followers who post on usenet. Every
"libertarian socialist" that I have had an extended conversation with
supports "libertarians socialism" as it was practiced *after* August
1936, not as they unsuccessfully attempted to practice it before
August 1936.
I have had many conversations with in recent years with "left
libertarians". These conversations always take the following form:
I say:
If people are free, they will generally pursue their own
particular good, so you will necessarily have capitalism.
"left libertarian" says:
People will pursue the common good because of
[incomprehensible but pleasant sounding word salad]
I say:
This sounds fine, though I am not sure exactly what you are
saying, but it does not sound very effective. In Catalonia
here is one of the things that happened. [Example of
totalitarian statist violence]
"left libertarian" says:
So? What is your objection? That is a good example of
[incomprehensible but pleasant sounding word salad.]
> I was pretty familiar with the libertarian left in the US a while back
> (late 70's/early 80's) and knew of no person or group who fits this
> description. There were other problems with left-libertarians but advocacy
> of centralism of any sort, of a command economy, of totalitarianism, or of
> brutal terror are not among them.
I was *in* the libertarian left in the early seventies, and certainly
there were some people who did not fit that description, I myself
being one of them, but gradually we dropped out as we gradually woke
up to the true nature of the movement. Certainly there were many who
fitted that description then, and now it approaches 100%
Before August 1936 many people believed, and many others claimed to
believe, that humans were spontaneously by nature eusocial, not merely
social, so that anarcho socialism was in fact natural for humans, and
could work without a centralized command economy enforced by
totalitarian terror.
In Catalonia this spontaneous eusociality conspicuously failed to
happen, and the "anarchist" leadership ditched their high ideals so
swiftly and so thoroughly that one may conclude that most of them
never seriously expected it to happen.
Therefore those remaining left libertarians are either ignorant of the
true nature of the regime in Catalonia after August 1936, as I was, or
else they support that kind of regime.
In the early 1970s, it was mostly the second. Today it is almost
entirely the second.
>The only violence I can recall hearing discussed was occasional idle talk
>about what should be done to scabs in a strike situation, of which, to my
>knowledge, nothing ever came.
As "left libertarians" have repeatedly explained to me, often in
patronizing tones, it is not violence when the state^H^H^H^H^H people
do it.
Just as they do not count it as violence when the tax collectors shoot
a tax resister during arrest, neither do they count it as violence
when "the people" post armed guards to keep the serfs bound to the
land.
> Of course, while I read pretty widely in the left-libertarian press, was
> a member of several organizations, traveled widely in those circles and
> was on the board of a leading left-libertarian organization, it is
> possible that I failed to pick up on the authoritarian wing of the
> left-libertarian movement in the US.
Or possibly you simply accept the "left libertarian" euphemisms for
terror and command.
I was reading the magazine "anarchy, the journal of desire armed".
They had a fantasy, where in a fictional society, a privileged
minority kept power and privilege by persuasion and social acceptance,
the privileged minority was never depicted as using any actual force,
only spurious ideas: Happy ending: Village is surrounded by heads on
stakes, it being implied that the oppressed have risen during the
night and cut off the heads of all the oppressors.
Consider the implications of this fantasy.
>So would you post the names of some of the left libertarian organizations
>or publications that you know of which advocated a "centralized command
>economy enforced by totalitarian violence and brutal terror"? Or, would
>you retract your statement above?
"Anarchy: The Journal of desire armed" In addition to the little
fantasy I mentioned, they also had a report on Cuba, which was at that
time still a totalitarian command economy enforced by terror, similar
to the economic organization of Catalonia after February 1937: The
reporter complained about the lack of freedom of speech, but thought
the economic organization was just fine.
Evan D Ravitz
: Yes, but the point is that direct democracy could easily lead to tyranny of
: the majority; if the majority want to take away the right to free speech,
: they can do so in direct democracy. Do you really want to risk that? Laws
: have passed in places like Switzerland with direct democracy which have
: hindered individual rights. That seems unlibertarian, to say the least.
Fear not! [I'm new to this group, so hope I'm not repeating.] The US
Constitution's Bill of Rights is working to protect minorities from
majorities (either of representatives or of citizens at large). Here's how:
All the Colorado Courts have ruled that Colorado Ammendment Two, passed
narrowly by the citizens in 1992, violates the equal protection clause of
the 14th Ammendment to the US Constitution because Two disallows gays
from equally participating in the political process: in this case, from
lobbying for gay-rights laws.
The principle of the balance of powers keeps things reasonable. I would
be very interested in further detail about Swiss initiatives that have
hindered individual rights. We feature the Swiss model in our extensive
web site on direct and electronic democracy (URL in sig below)
We are currently re-designing the site, so comments and suggestions will
be particularly useful at this point. Please email me as I don't know if
I'll get to check this group regularly...Thanks!...
Evan Ravitz, director, VOTING BY PHONE FOUNDATION: ev...@vote.org
Electronic democracy! From the directors of the U.S. National Science
Foundation's 1974 Televote trials and Boulder's 1993 ballot initiative:
International Historical Future Presentation at: http://www.vote.org/home
"What government is best? That which teaches us to govern ourselves." -Goethe
Jeffrey Davis
>What you are calling left libertarianism died in August 1936 when the
>leadership of "anarcho socialists" in Catalonia went into coalition
>with the Marxists to form a government and institute a centralized
>command economy.
>
[deletia]
Either the failure in Barcelona or Stalin's Show Trials in the 30s
were sufficient to put the kabosh on most of the West's infatuation w/
radical Left wing politics.
Jefferson's failure to free his slaves should have done the same for
the Right.
A key to politics in this century can be found in, of all places,
Robert Frost's poem "Provide, Provide" which is about the
vanity of human wishes -- something this century with its
infatuation w/ reductionist thought has forgotten. Frost wrote:
Some have relied on what they knew
Others on being simply true.
What worked for them might work for you.
A cheerful guy, isn't he?
--
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu>
Ever since then I have believed that God is not only a gentleman
and a sport; He is a Kentuckian too.
scot...@maine.maine.edu
>
>scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
>> Exactly -- Left Libertarians argue that:
>> 1) the goal is to have maximum individual freedom
>> 2) allowing capitalism to work as you described will actually lead to a
>> small oligarchy of wealthy individuals who WITH OR WITHOUT GOVERNMENT
>> ASSISTANCE can coerce others and limit freedom.
>
>
>What you are calling left libertarianism died in August 1936 when the
>leadership of "anarcho socialists" in Catalonia went into coalition
>with the Marxists to form a government and institute a centralized
>command economy.
LOL! I'm not talking about "anarcho socialists" and in fact ideas of left
libertarianism, even not codified as a single theory as such (though often
discussed with that title) are alive and well, esp. in Europe. I'm afraid
you're taking one little bit of history and trying to turn it into a claim
that a philosophy is dead. That's ridiculous.
>Since that time those few who still call themselves "libertarian
>socialists" and "libertarian communists" have been fans of a
>centralized command economy enforced by totalitarian violence and
>brutal terror.
You are simply WRONG. I suggest you investigate Post-Marxism, esp. articles
in the New Left Review, the book "radical democracy" by Laclau and Mouffe,
and also check out the journal Millenium. Also check out Chomsky. I don't
consider myself a post-marxist per se, but to make the absurd claim that left
libertarianism is dead because some Spanairds formed a coalition with
Communists is stupid.
-scott
scott_erb
>It seems to me that a governmental system truly adhering to
>"libertarian" concepts could not easily result in an oligarchy... I
>submit this thought because, at least at first blush, it seems
>unlikely that an "oligarchical" group could prevail upon a
>"libertarianist," and thus disinterested, government to enact legal
>assurances that such oligarchically-minded group would find
>sufficientently supportive of their efforts to control commerce....?
>Am I making any sense here?
I understand your argument, but the problem is that without government
regulations against oligarchical actions there is a tendency in capitalism
towards oligarchy and trusts. Presumably, libertarians would make those
sorts of activities illegal since they get in the way of pure capitalism.
However, even if they would be successful in implementing those regulations,
that doesn't deny the fact that even non-oligarchical enterprises would still
reward some by making them more powerful in society and giving them the
ability to take freedom away from the weaker.
This comes from a number of factors:
1) Libertarians seem to assume that labor and capital are "equal." Each are
co-negotiators who will reach an equilibrium wage due to supply and demand.
However, if capitalists can control the demand for labor, and if the supply
of labor is sufficiently large, then basically labor will have no power
vis-a-vis capitalists. Labor can, of course, unionize, but union busting is
easy in such circumstances. Unions only become effective when they have
influence on government, but that is already a step away from real
libertarianism (in the capitalist libertarian sense.)
2) Even if that problem could be overcome, some people in society are simply
unable to perform work at the same level of others. Some are just plain
stupid. These people will tend to be exploited and underpaid because they
lack the capacity to compete with others in society. Their freedoms are, in
essence, taken away by the stronger and more intelligent.
Libertarians do draw lines -- they may support a common defense, and other
governmental actions. Where they draw lines is always an open question.
Presumbly, the line is drawn in order to enhance freedom. Left libertarians
argue that liberal libertarians draw lines in a way which really enhances the
ability of certain groups in society to do better vis-a-vis others.
They are called LEFT because their argument is similar to Marx in that there
are different CLASSES created by capitalism, and the working class (or
working classes as they are now very differentiated) cannot compete fairly.
They are LIBERTARIAN because they DISAGREE with the Socialist notion of
government enforced equality or (worse) government ownership of the means of
production. Rather, the government must focus on providing equal opportunity
and protecting the most helpless in society. This means government's role is
to draw lines in a way to maximize individual liberty by both limiting
government but also using government to limit the power of wealthy and
powerful private elements in society.
It's a balancing act, with no simple ideological answer. It's messier than
the capitalist or communist utopias, but that to me is a sign that it's also
more realistic.
>This is not to favor a right-wing, heirachically-inclined group who
>might also seek effectively oligarchical control....
>
>It also seems probable to me that, as the power implied in knowledge
>devolves in both scale and scope, individuals will be gaining "real
>power" on an almost week-to-week basis, and in statistically
>significant measure. If I'm right, the scenario points away from
>"centralized groups" even having the capaciy to usurp or appropriate
>power--either economic or political....
I rather doubt that this will happen though. Only if you redistribute wealth
will power de-centralize to individuals. Otherwise, power may simply go from
government to wealthy individuals and corporations.
> If the scale of power
>devolves, the individual possessed of knowledge--and proficiency in
>the access and understanding of such--emerges as a power to be
>reckoned with.
That is the goal of "Left" libertarianism too. But the means requires
limiting BOTH government and elements in the "private" sector.
>What do you think?
I think the goals and the fundamental belief in individual freedom are the
same between these two "kinds" of "libertarianism." I'd even be so bold as
to call "left" libertarianism "pragmatic" liberalism because it focuses on
individual liberty but recognizes that government isn't the only problem.
The values are the same, we just disagree on the path to take to reach them.
-scott
scot...@maine.maine.edu
>Indeed when I described house to house searches for forbidden books
>with on the spot execution, public book burnings, sexual exploitation
>of female workers bound to their place of work, and so on and so forth
>I met the same blank wall of incredulous incomprehension that Scott
>Erb has displayed whenever I attempted to explaint the concept of
>natural rights to him.
James, you are going off the deep end. First of all, I've explained to YOU
why the concept of "natural rights" has very little philosophic foundation
and tends to be just a rationalization of personal opinion. You could never
respond why "natural rights" are better than saying that we can choose which
rights we believe are important and than work to achieve and defend them.
Second, I know all about the things you describe. I have no look of
incredulous incomprehension, I've been responding to every one of your
arguments.
Why do you engage in this silly tactic of trying to indirectly insult me
rather than respond to the debate? Geez.
>One of these left libertarians explained to me, with lordly air of
>someone explaining to the profoundly ignorant (very similar to Scott's
>air), that "disappearance" means right wingers making left wingers
>vanish without due process. The word does not apply to left wingers
>making right wingers vanish without due process.
Well, first of all: I support neither left nor right wing totalitarians, so
there is no way you can put me in with this so-called left libertarian. (I
personally think you're making this all up, but I'll play along.) Second,
you're avoiding any reaction to the post. You're just making silly
assertions and trying to make it sound like I'm making claims I'm not making.
In short, you're being dishonest.
-scott
James A. Donald
>Well, first of all: I support neither left nor right wing totalitarians, so
>there is no way you can put me in with this so-called left libertarian.
I did not mean to imply that you were a "left libertarian" -- or
indeed that you have any coherent political theory whatsoever.
I meant that your arguments were similar to the arguments of those
"anarcho" socialists who, like Tom Wetzel, seek to create "an
overarching democratic structure" in place of property rights, in the
arrogance and naivety of your arguments, not in the political content
of your arguments.
> James, you are going off the deep end. First of all, I've explained to YOU
> why the concept of "natural rights" has very little philosophic foundation
Arrogant doctrinaire proclamations from the pulpit are not an
"explanation". You never attempted to answer my arguments or to
support your assertions. You simply repeated your original assertions
in different words, and often in the exact same words. That is not
debate, that is like child in the schoolyard shouting "you are, you
are, you are!"
James A. Donald
>I understand your argument, but the problem is that without government
>regulations against oligarchical actions there is a tendency in capitalism
>towards oligarchy and trusts.
Bunkum:
Anti trust laws were used to *prevent* competition and enforce
monopoly and oligopoly, always have been, always will be.
Attempts to deal with harmful effects of concentration of power by yet
greater concentration of power are obviously doomed to fail.
For example when Microsoft attempted to squash Stac, through
means that were not only anti competitive, but were also immoral and
arguably illegal, where were the goons from anti trust?
But when Microsoft threatened to give the oligopolistic funds
transfer business a bit of *real* competition, the anti trust folks
lept upon Microsoft with great ferocity. Even though Microsoft
at present has no presence in the funds transfer business, they
declared that merely by entering the business Microsoft threatened to
create monopoly.
This is of course the way anti trust is invariably administered.
Now if the anti trust decrees (they are too vague and elastic to be
called laws) were administered by angels, by men vastly virtuous and
wise, they might well result in better products and more competition,
at the cost of minor violation of the property rights of a small
number of rich people.
There is a serious shortage of angels to govern us.
Your views on economics are as mystic as your views on political
theory:
I recommend to you Eric Baum's excellent summary of recent economic
research on anti trust:
Eric B. Baum wrote:
> From the 1993 _Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics_, the article on
> "Antitrust", pages 385-389:
> "...Only recently have economists looked at the empirical evidence (what
> has happened in the real world) to see whether the antitrust laws were
> needed. The popular view that cartels and monopolies were rampant at
> the turn of the century now seems incorrect to most economists. Thomas
> DiLorenzo has shown that the trusts against which the Sherman Act
> supposedly was directed were, in fact, expanding output many times
> faster than overall production was increasing nationwide; likewise, the
> trusts' prices were falling faster than those of all enterprises
> nationally. In other words, the trusts were doing the exact opposite of
> what economic theory says a monopoly or cartel must do to reap monopoly
> profits..."
> If you are actually interested in learning about this, about how the
> traditional picture is mistaken, I'd recommend
> "Antitrust and Monopoly" by Dominick Armentaro
> He begins Chapter 2 as follows:
> "It might be appropriate to begin a theoretical discussion of the foundations of
> antitrust law with the familiar historical observation that business competition
> was declining in the post-Civil War period. Joseph W. McGuire, in his classic
> `Business and Society', provides a typical expression of the conventional
> wisdom regarding the state of competition in the marketplace:
> `There have always existed many forces which tend to reduce competition.
> In the thirty years following the Civil War, these forces began to predominate
> in the United States... Competition, so effective as a regulating force
> on business operations in the decades prior to the war, was steadily decreasing
> as a few firms began to dominate our important industries and as these and other
> concerns turned more and more to collusion'.
> "Now this seems entirely straightforward..."Armentaro continues... "
> the Sherman Act was a logical response to a deteriorating economic situation...
> " And yet, there is something curious about this perspective, particularly
> in the McGuire text. For only a paragraph earlier it had informed the reader
> that:
> `From 1865 to 1897, declining prices year after year made it difficult for
> businessmen to plan for the future. In many areas new railroad links had
> resulted in a nationalization of the market east of the Mississippi, and even
> small concerns in small towns were forced to compete with other, often larger
> firms located at a distance. At the same time there were remarkable advances
> in technology and productivity. In short it was a wonderful era for the
> consumer and a frightening age for producers especially as competition became
> more and more severe.' "
> Armentaro goes on to analyze Trusts in detail, and resolve the conundrum.
> Consumers benefit from free competition without government intervention such
> as anti-trust. The purpose of Anti-trust is to *restrict* competition
> and protect established business interests from having to compete in an
> open marketplace. It is not a `socialist plot', but it is, effectively, a plot,
> and confusing the people about what's going on is part of that plot. Read
> Armentaro, and you will become less confused.
P. Marks
On Sun, 22 Oct 1995 scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
> In article <DGt11...@mv.mv.com>, mro...@wattanuck.mv.com says...
>
> >Historically anarchists are what Scott refers to as Left
> >Libertarianists. The bubble-headed right wing libertarian ideologues
> >purged the anarchist from the Libertarian Party back in the early
> >80's.
>
> Currently Left Libertarian is a term loosely applied to a group of thinkers
> (esp. in Europe) who distrust the state but also distrust the excesses of
> capitalism. It includes Greens, radical democrats, former capitalist
> libertarians, and others who place the freedom of the individual first. That
> freedom can be threatened by government, and by powerful and wealthy
> non-governmental forces. Captialist libertarianism focuses on the former and
> ignores the danger posed by the latter. Socialism and most ideas of Social
> Democracy focus on the latter and ignore the danger posed by the former.
> -scott
>
>
>
Anarchists vary (and have always done so) and not all libertarians are
anarchists (most are not).
What marks out libertarianism is the "non aggression principle" - which is
basically a formalised version of the principle of common law, i.e. that
it is a crime to violate the person or possessions of another.
Governments often use force for the benefit of private interests, however
if a rich individual or corp hires armed men directly and uses them to
attack the property of others (say to eliminate competitors) then it
should a crime is being committed.
On the other hand most regulations supposed to "protect" workers or
consumers tend to hurt them - and help established interests by
suppressing competition. See (for example) Hernando de Soto's "The Other
Path" (1989)
Egalitarian anarchism faces the problem of who is to make people equal
(in material goods) and who is to keep them that way. Calling the state
the "community", or "people", or "society" changes nothing.
If every time people try and trade other people turn up with clubs (to
suppress these "capitalistic acts between consenting adults").
As for "capitalist libertarians" changing into anarcho communalists. I
know of no cases of this - it tends to be the other way round.
Some libertarians DO change their opinions. For example Robert Nozick is
now a fairly conventional Harvard liberal (he has returned to origins
- and he is now welcome to Harvard gatherings). Anyone who read the
introduction to A.S.U. should not be surprised at this, Nozick is full
of praise for John Rawls and co and dislike for those "intolerant"
libertarians who might not see the greatness of Rawls and co.
I remember how odd I found Nozick's attitude. Non libertarian political
philosophers have pointed out that Rawls 600 odd page book (A Theory of
Justice - 1971) had nothing
with the traditional conception of justice (as being criminal nature of
certain actions) - instead being interested in the distribution of
material goodies.
Antony Flew was fond of pointing this out (for example see "Equality in
Liberty and Justice"), M.J. Oakeshott does mention Rawls in "On History
and Other Essays" (the essay on law I believe), but in "On Human Conduct"
the notion of "distributive justice" is dealt with in a footnote (page
153).
Still I have gone off on a tangent.
Historically "left libertarian" has had a meaning separate to anarcho
communalism. It has applied to libertarians who are very concerned with
defence spending (the "military industrial complex" idea) and with
subsidies to corps.
There is waste in the defence budget, and such things as the Commerce
department are basically just subsides for the corps. However as defence
spending has fallen to around 4% of output and subsidies to the corps
are very small compared too the welfare state - I find concentration on
such areas odd.
Paul Marks.
scott_erb
>Arrogant doctrinaire proclamations from the pulpit are not an
>"explanation". You never attempted to answer my arguments or to
>support your assertions. You simply repeated your original assertions
>in different words, and often in the exact same words. That is not
>debate, that is like child in the schoolyard shouting "you are, you
>are, you are!"
Er, you are the one with arrogant assertions and accusations.
If you can't defend the concept of natural rights, admit it. I challenged
you to defend it on anything but blind faith, and I argued why a conception
of rights that we choose is superior. I gave you a set of arguments. You
never even tried to respond (though others did, some with good, thoughtful
arguments). Instead you go off the deep end and assert that I'm wrong
because I assert that I'm right.
Again:
1) respond to my argument that there is no philosophical basis for natural
law; respond to my challenge to provide one.
P.S. quoting Thomas Jefferson is hardly philosophical proof.
2) respond to my argument that rights are better thought of as human
choice. I totally destroyed your claim that my view was statist or relied
on states to choose rights. What do you ignore that argument and make simple
assertions? Grow up.
-scott
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>In article <46f778$5...@news.iadfw.net>, mdh...@airmail.net says...
>>It seems to me that a governmental system truly adhering to
>>"libertarian" concepts could not easily result in an oligarchy... I
>>submit this thought because, at least at first blush, it seems
>>unlikely that an "oligarchical" group could prevail upon a
>>"libertarianist," and thus disinterested, government to enact legal
>>assurances that such oligarchically-minded group would find
>>sufficientently supportive of their efforts to control commerce....?
>>Am I making any sense here?
>I understand your argument, but the problem is that without government
>regulations against oligarchical actions there is a tendency in capitalism
>towards oligarchy and trusts.
This incredibly strong tendency has the amazing characteristic that it
has *never* been demonstrated in the real world.
I'm serious.
A monopoly can exist in a dying market, but it will of course die when
the market dies. It's a temporary annoyance at worst. Monopolistic
behavior to exploit its position will cause its market to die that
much faster.
A monopoly can exist in a very young industry, but only if it presses
the technology forward, and pushes prices down, so fast that no others
can keep up. This behavior provides clear benefits to the consumer.
A monopoly can exist in a mature industry, but only by behaving as if
it were under competitive heavy pressure -- which means that it cannot
act in a monopolistic manner, it cannot take advantage of its monopoly
position.
See, under *no* conditions can monopolistic abuses be sustained at the
expense of the consumer in a free market.
A monopoly can exist under *any* conditions, and endure for long
periods, and be extremely abusive, if GOVERNMENT RIGS THE GAME.
Libertarians won't have government rigging the game.
> Presumably, libertarians would make those
>sorts of activities illegal since they get in the way of pure capitalism.
Why would libertarians bother to prohibit businesses from being
self-destructive?
bab
> A monopoly can exist in a mature industry, but only by behaving as if
> it were under competitive heavy pressure -- which means that it cannot
> act in a monopolistic manner, it cannot take advantage of its monopoly
> position.
> See, under *no* conditions can monopolistic abuses be sustained at the
> expense of the consumer in a free market.
Actually I believe a monopolist can take advantage of the monopoly in
certain circumstances.
If there are high barriers to entry (large capital requirements, for
example, or the need to set up distribution channels -- I'm not
considering government-imposed barriers) then the monopolist needs only to
keep profits low enough that it is not worthwhile for a competitor to
enter the business. This can be a higher level than what a competitive
market would clear at.
Of course other forces such as changing consumer preferences and the
development of substitutes for the monopolists' product work to eliminate
such monopolies.
P. Marks
On Mon, 23 Oct 1995, Mark Roddy wrote:
> bobl...@pond.com (Robert Leone) wrote:
>
> >In article <DGt11...@mv.mv.com> mro...@wattanuck.mv.com (Mark Roddy) writes:
> >>From: mro...@wattanuck.mv.com (Mark Roddy)
> >>Subject: Re: Left Libertarianism
> >>Date: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 18:03:44 GMT
> >
> >>Shelly Waxman <swa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Historically anarchists are what Scott refers to as Left
> >>Libertarianists. The bubble-headed right wing libertarian ideologues
> >>purged the anarchist from the Libertarian Party back in the early
> >>80's.
> >
> >The actual history of the Libertarian Party is that it was founded by people
> >who broke away from the Republican Party.
> >
> Thats fine and dandy. So you are denying that the anarchitst were
> purged from the LP in the early 80s?
>
> >What you call "Left Libertarians" are a flavor of Marxist. Marx wrote that
> >the State would "whither away" in the final stages of Communism, and so you
> >could say that Marx was an ararchist
> Emma Goldman is rolling in her grave. anarchist are not Marxists. The
> first people the marxists shoot are the anarchists. Just because Marx
> posited a future outcome of communism that might resemble an anarchist
> society does not make Marxism anarchism. Many anarchists were (or are
> if there still are any) opposed to both the authority of the state
> government and its close ally the economic government. They also
> weren't too fond of private property, the holy grail of
> right-libertarianism.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
If you do not have private property (in an industrial society) then you
have government control. You may call the government "society",
"community", "the people", "the workers" (or whatever), it makes no
difference.
If you wish people to live in communes or monasteries, they can do that
NOW.
If you FORBID people to buy and sell and gain wealth, then the people
doing the forbidding are the state. They can call themselves
"anarchists" if they wish to, but they might as well call themselves
"Martians" for all the truth in it.
Paul Marks.
P.S. Why did this have t.p.m. in the address? Or guns and drugs for that
matter. Oh well I do not suppose it is worth editing it - people may be
reading the thread in those newsgroups.
scott_erb
>
>Scott Erb wrote:
>>I understand your argument, but the problem is that without government
>>regulations against oligarchical actions there is a tendency in capitalism
>>towards oligarchy and trusts.
>
>This incredibly strong tendency has the amazing characteristic that it
>has *never* been demonstrated in the real world.
>
>I'm serious.
Yes it has, numerous times, esp. at the turn of the 20th century when this
really became a problem and Roosevelt moved to inact legislation.
>See, under *no* conditions can monopolistic abuses be sustained at the
>expense of the consumer in a free market.
Why not? Let's say you have an monopolistic producer of a good with price
elascticity. Then demand for that good will fall if the price rises. Any
economist can show you that the equilibrium price for a monopoly will be
higher than that of competition. That equilibrium will allow the monopoly to
maximize profits. In perfect competition there is NO PROFIT due to price
competition (or slight profit simply to push the economy in different
directions; it would disappear for each industry). THAT is something which
has never existed in the real world, and I doubt ever will. Now, if a
monopoly exists for a good with income inelasticity (say oil), then the
equilibrium price can rise farther and increase profits at the expense of the
consumer much more.
In other words, no matter what conditions exist, an equilibrium price for a
monopoly exists which is superior (for the monopoly) than the "pure
competition" equilbrium price (which would tend to eliminate profits). This
creates a strong incentive towards monolpolies and trusts in pure capitalism.
Since business people are smart and tricky, they usually find a way to work
towards this. Buying off government is one way, but making deals with each
other and controlling the market outside of government is another.
>A monopoly can exist under *any* conditions, and endure for long
>periods, and be extremely abusive, if GOVERNMENT RIGS THE GAME.
And there are other ways. You seem to take this as an article of faith, but
if you study economics abit, you'll see it's not true.
>Libertarians won't have government rigging the game.
Really? What party doesn't say that?
-scott
Dangerous Thoughts
>Exactly -- Left Libertarians argue that:
> 1) the goal is to have maximum individual freedom
See this? vvv
> 2) allowing capitalism to work as you described will actually lead to a
>small oligarchy of wealthy individuals who WITH OR WITHOUT GOVERNMENT
>ASSISTANCE can coerce others and limit freedom.
It says "allowing", as in "allow".
al-low, v.t. 1. to give permission to or for; permit
This essentially proves that your
"Left" Libertarians are not libertarians
in any sense or form. Libertarians
believe in maximum individual freedom.
They don't allow or permit and they don't
ban or regulate excepting the sole
condition that it provably harms another.
Take your Communism back with you and cease
libelling Libertarians.
Regards,
Dangerous Thoughts
James A. Donald
>If you can't defend the concept of natural rights, admit it. I challenged
>you to defend it on anything but blind faith,
from http:/catalog.com/jamesd/rights.html
This is the first part, the introduction, from the article on my web
on this topic page
NATURAL LAW AND NATURAL RIGHTS
By James A. Donald
_________________________________________________________________
Natural law and natural rights follow from the nature of man and the
world. We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right,
not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
Natural law has objective, external existence. It follows from the ESS
(evolutionary stable strategy) for the use of force that is natural
for humans and similar animals. The ability to make moral judgments,
the capacity to know good and evil, has immediate evolutionary
benefits: just as the capacity to perceive three dimensionally tells
me when I am standing on the edge of a cliff, so the capacity to know
good and evil tells me if my companions are liable to cut my throat.
It evolved in the same way, for the same straightforward and
uncomplicated reasons, as our ability to throw rocks accurately.
Natural law is not some far away and long ago golden age myth imagined
by Locke three hundred years ago, but a real and potent force itoday's
world, which still today forcibly constrains the lawless arrogance of
government officials, as it did in Dade county very recently.
The opponents of natural rights often complain that the advocates of
natural rights are not logically consistent, because we continually
shift between inequivalent definitions of natural law. They gleefully
manufacture long lists of "logical contradictions". Indeed, the
definitions we use are not logically equivalent, but because of the
nature of man and the nature of the world, they are substantially
equivalent in practice. These complaints by the opponents of natural
rights are trivial hair splitting, and pointless legalistic logic
chopping. It is easy to imagine "in principle" a world where these
definitions were not equivalent. If humans were intelligent bees,
rather than intelligent apes, these definitions would not be
equivalent, and the concept of natural law would be trivial or
meaningless, but we are what we are and the world is what it is, and
these definitions, the definitions of natural law, are equivalent, not
by some proof of pure reason, but by history, experience, economics,
and observation.
In this paper I have used several different definitions of natural
law, often without indicating which definition I was using, often
without knowing or caring which definition I was using. Among the
definitions that I use are:
* The medieval/legal definition: Natural law cannot be defined in
the way that positive law is defined, and to attempt to do so
plays into the hands of the enemies of freedom. Natural law is
best defined by pointing at particular examples, as a biologist
defines a species by pointing at a particular animal, a type
specimen preserved in formalin. (This definition is the most
widely used, and is probably the most useful definition for
lawyers)
* The historical state of nature definition: Natural law is that
law which corresponds to a spontaneous order in the absence of
a state and which is enforced, (in the absence of better
methods), by individual unorganized violence, in particular
the law that historically existed (in so far as any law
existed) during the dark ages among the mingled barbarians
that overran the Holy Roman Empire.
* The medieval / philosophical definition: Natural law is that
law, which it is proper to uphold by unorganized individual
violence, whether a state is present or absent, and for which,
in the absence of orderly society, it is proper to punish
violators by unorganized individual violence. Locke gives the
example of Cain, in the absence of orderly society, and the
example of a mugger, where the state exists, but is not
present at the crime. Note Locke's important distinction
between the state and society. For example trial by jury
originated in places and times where there was no state power,
or where the state was violently hostile to due process and
the rule of law but was too weak and distant to entirely
suppress it.
* The scientific/ sociobiological/ game theoretic/ evolutionary
definition: Natural law is, or follows from, an ESS for the use
of force: Conduct which violates natural law is conduct such
that, if a man were to use individual unorganized violence to
prevent such conduct, or, in the absence of orderly society,
use individual unorganized violence to punish such conduct,
then such violence would not indicate that the person using
such violence, (violence in accord with natural law) is a
danger to a reasonable man. This definition is equivalent to
the definition that comes from the game theory of iterated
three or more player non zero sum games, applied to
evolutionary theory. The idea of law, of actions being
lawful or unlawful, has the emotional significance that it does
have, because this ESS for the use of force is part of our
nature.
Utilitarian and relativist philosophers demand that advocates of
natural law produce a definition of natural law that is independent of
the nature of man and the nature of the world. Since it is the very
essence of natural law to reason from the nature of man and the nature
of the world, to deduce "should" from "is", we unsurprisingly fail to
meet this standard.
[Rest of this excellent article deleted, for reasons of space]
Available on my web page.
James A. Donald
> Yes [spontaneous monopoly]t has, numerous times, esp. at the turn
> moved to inact legislation.
Alarmed by falling prices, Roosevelt enacts legislation to prevent
competition. This proves that capitalism has a tendency to monopoly?
> In perfect competition there is NO PROFIT due to price
> competition
Scott Erb's knowledge of economics is distinctly entertaining: If
businessmen were to make no profit, why would they produce goods?
Are we to understand that under conditions of perfect competion,
nobody would produce anything?
scott_erb
dange...@delphi.com says...
>> 2) allowing capitalism to work as you described will actually lead to a
>>small oligarchy of wealthy individuals who WITH OR WITHOUT GOVERNMENT
>>ASSISTANCE can coerce others and limit freedom.
>
>It says "allowing", as in "allow".
>
>al-low, v.t. 1. to give permission to or for; permit
>
>This essentially proves that your
>"Left" Libertarians are not libertarians
>in any sense or form.
That's a new one. You claim that the dictionary definition of the word
"allow" proves that left libertarians are not libertarians in any form! What
a unique argument. Now, would your proof be as strong if I reworded the
above statment to say "IF capitalism works as you described then it will lead
to..." My statement would mean the same, but the word "allow" would be gone.
In other words, your "proof" means nothing.
> Libertarians
>believe in maximum individual freedom.
>They don't allow or permit and they don't
>ban or regulate excepting the sole
>condition that it provably harms another.
My point is that you have a logical fallacy in your philosophy. First, how
do you determine if something harms another (who has the power to determine,
who has the power to respond in such a case). Second, "left" libertarians
argue that many people OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT through the "natural" workings
of capitalism will indeed harm others and beyond that LIMIT THE FREEDOM of
others through exercise of their own "individual freedom."
In other words, libertarian logic is simplistic. It seems to think only
government can limit freedom. The problem is, my exercise of my freedom may
limit someone else's exercise of their freedom. Therefore, libertarians that
don't take this seriously are the ones who do not really believe in
individual liberty. Instead, they devolve to a social darwinist ideology
where the strong or powerful can limit the freedom of others so long as they
don't physically molest or "hurt" them. The freedoms they espouse don't
apply everywhere. "Left" libertarians recognize this and would be the true
supporters of individual freedom by focusing on that as the starting point
for determining what government regulation is necessary to assure maximum
individual freedom and equality of opportunity. They also recognize that
real issues exist as to how the power to determine who is "hurt" is granted,
and what recourses should be available. I see these as issues which have to
be decided by a polity, there is no simple utopian answer.
>Take your Communism back with you and cease
>libelling Libertarians.
ROTFL! Er, you have no conception of what communism is, do you? Communists
HATE so-called "left libertarians" more than they hate capitalists. No,
you're showing yourself to be rather ignorant of these issues. You have
faith in your utopia, and it is heartening to see such an idealistic faith
espoused. However, I believe your faith here is misguided.
-scott
bab
> In article <46u3g8$b...@shellx.best.com>, jam...@echeque.com says...
> >> In perfect competition there is NO PROFIT due to price
> >> competition
> >Scott Erb's knowledge of economics is distinctly entertaining: If
> >businessmen were to make no profit, why would they produce goods?
> >Are we to understand that under conditions of perfect competion,
> >nobody would produce anything?
> James, as you well know, perfect competition in capitalism leads to zero
> overall profit. (At least I assume you know this. If not, I suggest you
> pick up Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations," or any economics textbook).
I think this depends on how you define profit. After any free market
trade both parties have "profited" because they have each received a
higher value for a lesser value. If each transaction is profitable, then
the system overall is profitable also. If the individual transactions are
no longer profitable to both parties, they will cease.
What gets pushed to zero in perfect competiton is the excess of price
over cost. But both parties can still be better off even on an even swap
(and even after transaction costs), due to differences in the relative
values they place on the goods.
scott_erb
>> In perfect competition there is NO PROFIT due to price
>> competition
>
>Scott Erb's knowledge of economics is distinctly entertaining: If
>businessmen were to make no profit, why would they produce goods?
>
>Are we to understand that under conditions of perfect competion,
>nobody would produce anything?
James McDonald's creative use of the "delete" key is entertaining and,
essentially, dishonest.
James, as you well know, perfect competition in capitalism leads to zero
overall profit. (At least I assume you know this. If not, I suggest you
pick up Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations," or any economics textbook).
However, there are profits in certain industries to show where adjustments
need to be made. Short-term profits cause people to shift from industry to
industry, Smith's so called "hidden hand". Unfortunately, there are many
reasons why this "hidden hand" doesn't function perfectly and perfect
capitalism can't exist in the real world.
Again, James, I suggest you stop deleting arguments and calling names.
Everyone reading talk.politics.theory (or any of the cross posted groups) can
see what you are doing. It hurts your credibility and does not damange my
argument. Others are making decent, sometimes very good arguments against my
position without resorting to such behavior. I suggest you do likewise.
-scott
scott_erb
>Natural law and natural rights follow from the nature of man and the
>world. We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
>of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right,
>not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
You are assuming there is such a thing as "true law." Also, it's odd to call
property a right; anthropologists note that there are many cultures that
don't even have this concept. Odd, that they would be ignorant of something
you consider a natural law for humans? Or perhaps are you asserting natural
law to rationalize your own particular cultural beliefs? Hmmmm?
>Natural law has objective, external existence. It follows from the ESS
>(evolutionary stable strategy) for the use of force that is natural
>for humans and similar animals.
ROTFL! Evolutionary stable strategy? What kind of gobbely gook are you
throwing out here. It sounds like you have faith in this belief of yours,
but unless you provide some proof about this external existence, it's
meaningless.
HINT: To prove an hypothesis it has to falsifiable. You posit natural rights
as having an objective existence. Provide a test of this hypothesis.
Otherwise, it's just opinion.
> The ability to make moral judgments,
>the capacity to know good and evil, has immediate evolutionary
>benefits: just as the capacity to perceive three dimensionally tells
>me when I am standing on the edge of a cliff, so the capacity to know
>good and evil tells me if my companions are liable to cut my throat.
The ability to make moral judgments has many potential benefits. That
doesn't mean that it is natural law. Furthermore, since there are
disagreements on what good and evil are, how can your "natural law" provide a
correct definition? This sounds like a psuedo-religious effort at
unscientfic assertion surrounded by psuedo-philosophical rhetoric.
>It evolved in the same way, for the same straightforward and
>uncomplicated reasons, as our ability to throw rocks accurately.
Prove it. Hell, even define it. You're treating "natural law" as a very
abstract concept here. Your argument boils down, so far, to natural law is
simply whatever behavior allows us to survive and evolve. That hardly
provides much of a definition of good or evil, nor does it seem to even
suggest one set of natural laws. Different ethical codes and codes of
conduct may all equally aid evolution and development.
>Natural law is not some far away and long ago golden age myth imagined
>by Locke three hundred years ago, but a real and potent force itoday's
>world, which still today forcibly constrains the lawless arrogance of
>government officials, as it did in Dade county very recently.
Huh? Another bald assertion which has no support.
>The opponents of natural rights often complain that the advocates of
>natural rights are not logically consistent, because we continually
>shift between inequivalent definitions of natural law. They gleefully
>manufacture long lists of "logical contradictions". Indeed, the
>definitions we use are not logically equivalent, but because of the
>nature of man and the nature of the world, they are substantially
>equivalent in practice. These complaints by the opponents of natural
>rights are trivial hair splitting, and pointless legalistic logic
>chopping.
Ah, even in your "web site" I see you enjoy manufacturing the arguments of
your opponents to which you wish to respond. However, unless you provide
more proof that natural law exists as something other than an abstract "that
which helps us survive" (something many different competing sets of "natural
law" could claim), the contradictions and definitional elements you mention
are irrelevant. Your claim about natural law is already DOA.
> It is easy to imagine "in principle" a world where these
>definitions were not equivalent. If humans were intelligent bees,
>rather than intelligent apes, these definitions would not be
>equivalent, and the concept of natural law would be trivial or
>meaningless, but we are what we are and the world is what it is, and
>these definitions, the definitions of natural law, are equivalent, not
>by some proof of pure reason, but by history, experience, economics,
>and observation.
First, why would it matter between species? You are making no sense in the
paragraph above. And you still have done nothing but assert that natural law
exists. I'm looking for some sort of proof (let alone proof that your view
of what it is correct!)
>In this paper I have used several different definitions of natural
>law, often without indicating which definition I was using,
That hardly surprises me.
>often
>without knowing or caring which definition I was using.
It seems you are showing the weakness of your own position by admitting this.
> Among the definitions that I use are:
> * The medieval/legal definition: Natural law cannot be defined in
> the way that positive law is defined, and to attempt to do so
> plays into the hands of the enemies of freedom. Natural law is
> best defined by pointing at particular examples, as a biologist
> defines a species by pointing at a particular animal, a type
> specimen preserved in formalin. (This definition is the most
> widely used, and is probably the most useful definition for
> lawyers)
Natural law is best defined by pointing at particular examples? So far, not
much of a definition. What's next?
> * The historical state of nature definition: Natural law is that
> law which corresponds to a spontaneous order in the absence of
> a state and which is enforced, (in the absence of better
> methods), by individual unorganized violence, in particular
> the law that historically existed (in so far as any law
> existed) during the dark ages among the mingled barbarians
> that overran the Holy Roman Empire.
This is very weak, it sounds like a thought experiment, and people can do in
thought experiments whatever they wish (e.g., Rousseau's 'state of nature').
Hardly helpful. Next?
> * The medieval / philosophical definition: Natural law is that
> law, which it is proper to uphold by unorganized individual
> violence, whether a state is present or absent, and for which,
> in the absence of orderly society, it is proper to punish
> violators by unorganized individual violence. Locke gives the
> example of Cain, in the absence of orderly society, and the
> example of a mugger, where the state exists, but is not
> present at the crime. Note Locke's important distinction
> between the state and society. For example trial by jury
> originated in places and times where there was no state power,
> or where the state was violently hostile to due process and
> the rule of law but was too weak and distant to entirely
> suppress it.
This is especially weak. It begs the question of what is "proper," and has
the same "thought experiment" problems of the previous definition. Also,
since many cultures and societies have different norms and different ways of
developing, there is a tendency here to assume one's own culture represents
natural law. There is no "one way" things were done before the state,
cultures evolved differently. Still not useful. Next?
> * The scientific/ sociobiological/ game theoretic/ evolutionary
> definition: Natural law is, or follows from, an ESS for the use
>> of force: Conduct which violates natural law is conduct such
> that, if a man were to use individual unorganized violence to
> prevent such conduct, or, in the absence of orderly society,
> use individual unorganized violence to punish such conduct,
> then such violence would not indicate that the person using
> such violence, (violence in accord with natural law) is a
> danger to a reasonable man.
Too wordy and abstract. Also it begs the question of what violence is, what
a "reasonable man" is, how one determines hte "if..then..." comparison, and
what danger is. In other words, this definition is far too abstract and
theoretical to have much practical use. But it continues...
> This definition is equivalent to
> the definition that comes from the game theory of iterated
> three or more player non zero sum games, applied to
> evolutionary theory. The idea of law, of actions being
> lawful or unlawful, has the emotional significance that it does
> have, because this ESS for the use of force is part of our
> nature.
Game theory has severe weaknesses, one of the most important is that the
"correct" strategy of the game changes if the payoffs change. Payoff changes
reflect changing preferences and conditions. Evolutionary games (such as
those by Axelrod) are little more than fancy thought experiments which say
things like "cooperation could evolve if certain strategies were used and
certain preferences held." It hardly comes close to proving any sort of
fundamental natural law. Furthermore, game theorists are basically
relativists -- they set preferences and change them in order to develop
different games and possible strategies. They can hardly be used as a proof
of natural law!
>Utilitarian and relativist philosophers demand that advocates of
>natural law produce a definition of natural law that is independent of
>the nature of man and the nature of the world.
Heck, I'd be satisfied with at least a definition that isn't an abstraction,
but one that is clear cut and applies to the lives of people in the world. I
still see little more than "natural law is that which helps us survive."
Again, many different sets of "natural laws" could apply (and in fact the
most effective 'set' might vary by culture.) Indeed, your use of game theory
seems to turn your argument around because game theory relativizes any
strategy or set of laws because changing preferences and payoffs change the
whole game. In that sense, you're destroying your own argument.
>Since it is the very
>essence of natural law to reason from the nature of man and the nature
>of the world, to deduce "should" from "is", we unsurprisingly fail to
>meet this standard.
Science can't determine ethics because science cannot answer questions
involving purpose or preferences. Your notion seems to only have survival as
a goal, but again, there are many ways a society could survive and evolve.
(In fact, since evolution is a response to changes -- survival of the fittest
-- which gets done biologically over long stretches, it is really separate
from notions of ethics). You have no way of dealing with arguments from
those having religious views concerning ethics (sure, they aren't scientific,
but since science can't falsify religion, that doesn't prove them wrong), and
no means of proving your position vis-a-vis those who claim that humans can
choose what sort of society they want. You can't prove your view, you can
only offer it as an opinion. Not only that, but an opinion which is vague,
abstract, poorly defined, has no relevance in the world, and is countered by
even your own evidence.
Sorry, this was a poor defense of natural law on your part.
-scott
Mark Roddy
Even if you do have private property you have governmental control.
Else I'll just take yours if I feel like it. So if a system that
enforces its principals is a government, then I'm afraid unless and
until we all become perfect saints, we will continue to require some
government.
>
>If you FORBID people to buy and sell and gain wealth, then the people
>doing the forbidding are the state. They can call themselves
>"anarchists" if they wish to, but they might as well call themselves
>"Martians" for all the truth in it.
>
Anarchists in general believe in free associations (communities) so
the concept of FORBID is a little weak. If you wanted to create some
other form of social organization, say one where a small group of
elites control all the wealth, the media, the means of production, and
spend a lot of time fooling the rest of the people into thinking it is
the best of all possible worlds, then you would be free to do so.
JS
> Anarchists in general believe in free associations (communities) so
> the concept of FORBID is a little weak. If you wanted to create some
> other form of social organization, say one where a small group of
> elites control all the wealth, the media, the means of production, and
> spend a lot of time fooling the rest of the people into thinking it is
> the best of all possible worlds, then you would be free to do so.
Really? Was that Durruti's philosophy? Laissez-faire for capitalists? Some
leftist anarchists strike me as simply being extremely idealistic
totalitarians - an attempt to have a Stalinist or Maoist state without
Stalin or Mao, without a state apparatus. Capitalists, free-enterprise
libertarians have no right to private property, so every left-anarchist
becomes his own, unorganized OGPU.
The other trick is the "fooling the rest of the people" business. This
often seems to allow left-anarchists (and other leftists) to pretend that
free expression of opinion is a form of oppression, therefore
illegitimate.
JS
bab
> >> See, under *no* conditions can monopolistic abuses be sustained at the
> >> expense of the consumer in a free market.
> >Actually I believe a monopolist can take advantage of the monopoly in
> >certain circumstances.
> >If there are high barriers to entry (large capital requirements, for
> >example, or the need to set up distribution channels -- I'm not
> >considering government-imposed barriers) then the monopolist needs only to
> >keep profits low enough that it is not worthwhile for a competitor to
> >enter the business. This can be a higher level than what a competitive
> >market would clear at.
> In other words, a monopoly can sustain a practice of monopolistic
> abuses by not engaging in monopolistic abuses.
> Somehow I think that what I'm hearing isn't what you intended to say.
Let me give a hypothetical example. Let's say I own a widget factory. The
factory cost me $1,000,000 to build. I am able to supply enough widgets
to meet the demand in my market. Demand is relatively price inelastic
(ie, does not change much with changes in price).
If a potential competitor was looking at the situation, s/he would
realize that an investment of $1,000,000 would be required. If the cost
of money is, say, 6%, that means they would have to produce an extra
profit -- more than me -- of $60,000 per year just to cover the cost of
capital.
Let's say my price per widget is $5, with a marginal cost of $2 and a
fixed cost of $100,000. If I sell 100,000 then my cost is $300,000 and my
profit is $500,000 minus $300,000 = $200,000.
If a competitor came in and we split the market, we would each sell 50,000
units. The lowest price I could sustain would be $4/unit, which would be
my per unit cost ($100,000 fixed plus (50,000 * $2 variable) = $200,000
total cost divided by 50,000 units = $4). The lowest cost the competitor
could sustain is $5.20/unit ($100,000 fixed plus $60,000 interest plus
50,000*$2 variable = $260,000 divided by 50,000 units = $5.20).
So, if I'm charging more than $4/unit, I am charging more than I would in
a competitive market, and am making "monopoly profits". But, if I am
charging less than $5.20/unit, it is not worth the cost for a potential
competitor to break my monopoly. If I price above $5.20 then it would be
profitable for them to do so, potentially. But until then I am safe, even
though I am charging 25% more ($5 vs $4) than I would under competiton.
Kim Kinnison
>>If you do not have private property (in an industrial society) then you
>>have government control. You may call the government "society",
>>"community", "the people", "the workers" (or whatever), it makes no
>>difference.
>>
>Even if you do have private property you have governmental control.
>Else I'll just take yours if I feel like it. So if a system that
>enforces its principals is a government, then I'm afraid unless and
>until we all become perfect saints, we will continue to require some
>government.
Please understand the difference between "control" (determining what shall be
produced, in what quantities, and to whom it shall be distributed, in exchange
for what) versus "protection" (prevention of the use of force to take away
something which is someone else's property).
A good dictionary would be helpful
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let people have guns
-- why should we let them have ideas?
Joseph Stalin
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>In article <46tj2b$p...@shellx.best.com>, jam...@echeque.com says...
>>Natural law and natural rights follow from the nature of man and the
>>world. We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
>>of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right,
>>not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
>You are assuming there is such a thing as "true law." Also, it's odd to call
>property a right; anthropologists note that there are many cultures that
>don't even have this concept.
And yet, while many human societies do not have the *same* concept of
property that we have, no human society has yet been presented where
we do not find *some* concept of property and *some* percieved and
*enforced* property rights.
In fact we find evidence of some conception of property, and/or
enforcement of property rights, in many non-human societies.
> Odd, that they would be ignorant of something
>you consider a natural law for humans?
In consequence of the facts I pointed out above, this sentence has no
surviving referent.
>>Natural law has objective, external existence. It follows from the ESS
>>(evolutionary stable strategy) for the use of force that is natural
>>for humans and similar animals.
>ROTFL! Evolutionary stable strategy? What kind of gobbely gook are you
>throwing out here. It sounds like you have faith in this belief of yours,
>but unless you provide some proof about this external existence, it's
>meaningless.
Your ignorance is not proof of his error.
>HINT: To prove an hypothesis it has to falsifiable. You posit natural rights
>as having an objective existence. Provide a test of this hypothesis.
>Otherwise, it's just opinion.
Simple test: if socialism normally works with real people in national
quantities, then either there is no "natural law" or most current
proponents are 180 degrees off.
>> The ability to make moral judgments,
>>the capacity to know good and evil, has immediate evolutionary
>>benefits: just as the capacity to perceive three dimensionally tells
>>me when I am standing on the edge of a cliff, so the capacity to know
>>good and evil tells me if my companions are liable to cut my throat.
>The ability to make moral judgments has many potential benefits. That
>doesn't mean that it is natural law. Furthermore, since there are
>disagreements on what good and evil are, how can your "natural law" provide a
>correct definition? This sounds like a psuedo-religious effort at
>unscientfic assertion surrounded by psuedo-philosophical rhetoric.
To me this sounds like "there is no natural law, therefore your logic
supporting it is in error".
If we have contradictions in our conception of natural law, this only
proves that our conception is inaccurate. There are contradictions in
our conception of *many* kinds of natural law; for example, in
physics, relatively and quantum mechanics *each* work in the domains
where we can currently apply them, but there is an area we cannot
currently apply either where they lead to contradictory conclusions.
Thus the physicists know that at least one of them is not quite right,
but are unable to determine what correction is needed. From this
would you conclude that there are no fundamental laws of physics?
>>It evolved in the same way, for the same straightforward and
>>uncomplicated reasons, as our ability to throw rocks accurately.
>Prove it. Hell, even define it. You're treating "natural law" as a very
>abstract concept here. Your argument boils down, so far, to natural law is
>simply whatever behavior allows us to survive and evolve.
Do you have a problem with that? Perhaps you would prefer that your
ancestors had not survived and evolved?
> That hardly
>provides much of a definition of good or evil, nor does it seem to even
>suggest one set of natural laws.
I find it quite adequate.
> Different ethical codes and codes of
>conduct may all equally aid evolution and development.
Is this a problem? Your statement is true; however, it does not imply
that there is no natural law. Merely that natural law is not a
complete deterministic specification of how every entity should react
under every possible set of conditions.
Not one viable ethical code or code of conduct requires a person to
routinely violate the law of gravity. But gravity does not dictate
the precise steps of a dance.
>>Natural law is not some far away and long ago golden age myth imagined
>>by Locke three hundred years ago, but a real and potent force itoday's
>>world, which still today forcibly constrains the lawless arrogance of
>>government officials, as it did in Dade county very recently.
>Huh? Another bald assertion which has no support.
You mean, bald factual evidence which has no support.
Enough.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin (wa...@blarg.net) wrote:
>> A monopoly can exist in a mature industry, but only by behaving as if
>> it were under competitive heavy pressure -- which means that it cannot
>> act in a monopolistic manner, it cannot take advantage of its monopoly
>> position.
>> See, under *no* conditions can monopolistic abuses be sustained at the
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>In article <46u3g8$b...@shellx.best.com>, jam...@echeque.com says...
>>> In perfect competition there is NO PROFIT due to price
>>> competition
>>
>>Scott Erb's knowledge of economics is distinctly entertaining: If
>>businessmen were to make no profit, why would they produce goods?
>>
>>Are we to understand that under conditions of perfect competion,
>>nobody would produce anything?
>James McDonald's creative use of the "delete" key is entertaining and,
>essentially, dishonest.
I checked back. He deleted nothing significant and relevant to what
he was responding to. I am sorry if you find efficient, logical
argument offensive.
>James, as you well know, perfect competition in capitalism leads to zero
>overall profit. (At least I assume you know this. If not, I suggest you
>pick up Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations," or any economics textbook).
I have read Wealth of Nations, and several other economics textbooks,
and I have absolutely no clue where you picked up this idea.
But I strongly suggest you put it back down.
In a situation of perfect competition, every single trade produces a
profit to every party in the trade and a cost (other than missed
opportunities) to no other party. So, clearly, there must be a net
profit.
scott_erb
>>James, as you well know, perfect competition in capitalism leads to zero
>>overall profit. (At least I assume you know this. If not, I suggest you
>>pick up Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations," or any economics textbook).
>
>I have read Wealth of Nations, and several other economics textbooks,
>and I have absolutely no clue where you picked up this idea.
>
>But I strongly suggest you put it back down.
No, you are completely wrong here. This is a basic economic fact of
capitalism and I'm amazed that you are trying to deny it. Where did you get
your information about classical capitalist economic theory?
>In a situation of perfect competition, every single trade produces a
>profit to every party in the trade and a cost (other than missed
>opportunities) to no other party. So, clearly, there must be a net
>profit.
Have you studied economics much? I suspect not, given your apparent
misunderstanding of how capitalism is said to operate under perfect market
conditions. I suggest taking a college course in econ and asking your
instructor about the existence of profit under conditions of perfect
competition in capitalism.
As I stated in my post, profits exist only as pointers to adjustment (and for
every profit there is someone losing money). If industry X makes a certain
product and it sells for price Y, yielding a profit to X, then more
industries will join X in making that product until Price Y(2) is reached
where no profit is made (as more join, the price drops due to the laws of
supply and demand). In fact, due to delays in information, chances are that
prices will dip below Y(2) to mean that firms making the product will suffer
losses. Those firms will then seek out a product where there is some
profits, and the same thing starts. Mathematical equilibrium occurs when
supply and demand are set at a price which does not yield profit for any
product. However, since changes take place in consumer preferences and
technology, shifts occur which cause prices to rise or fall, thereby yielding
short term profits. These point to how the system should adjust to maintain
equilibrium. Profits thus occur (but at a level equal to loses) as
adjustments are made.
There are a number of reasons why perfect capitalism is impossible:
1) it assumes labor and capital have equal footing. In the above example,
capitalists are unable to simply lower labor prices to acheive profits
because that would decrease demand. In reality, exploitation is feasible
because one seeks other markets, and because demand can shift from labor to
the management class, creating a disparity between the rich and the poor.
2) firms can't adjust quickly -- you can't go from making cars to Madonna
posters just because demand changes.
3) capitalists easily find ways around perfect competition. Agreements to
keep prices higher, dropping prices at the price of short term loses to drive
competition out of the market, etc., have all been effectively used.
4) capitalists tend to control governments and create regulations which
help them (the one cause you seem to agree upon).
Neo-classical economists, esp. John Meynard Keynes, point out that Adam
Smith's version of perfect capitalism with no profits overall was inadequate
because of the factor of time. Shifts in technology and information delays
can allow for the economy as a whole to grow, or, as in the case of the
depression, continuous economic decline is just as possible. (Economists
have completely debunked the myth that the depression was just a result of
government policies). The problem: growth booms are spurred by investment
speculation, and often result in a reaction known as a depression or
recession. The "continuous profit" that appears to exist is eliminated when
one factors for time (and inflation and other costs), though economic growth
can create a greater level of wealth within society.
Perhaps most important is the addition of "comparative advantage" (David
Ricardo) to capitalism. Here real gains can be made by opening up to free
trade and specializing. In fact, this is really what saved capitalism after
WWII -- it led to the biggest boom in history, and a real creation of wealth.
Once specialization is complete and the gains have been realized, those
profits also tend to disappear, and competition switches from specialization
to cost cutting, takeovers and attempts to survive in a market with little
growth.
None of this is possible under conditions of perfect competition, of course,
but as neo-classical economists correctly point out, the perfect competition
of Adam Smith is as utopian as the perfect communism of Karl Marx.
-scott
scott_erb
>And yet, while many human societies do not have the *same* concept of
>property that we have, no human society has yet been presented where
>we do not find *some* concept of property and *some* percieved and
>*enforced* property rights.
Modern notions of property rights are recent. If you define "some" broadly
enough, you could probably argue that, but in a capitalist sense of property
rights, this is a rather new phenomenon (for a short discussion of this which
is readable see "The Politics of Change," by Barner-Barry and Hody,
pp.138-142)
>In fact we find evidence of some conception of property, and/or
>enforcement of property rights, in many non-human societies.
You are stretching your definition and interpretation too broadly for my
tastes. Again, stick to specific property relations of capitalism, and
you'll see they are unique in many respects.
>In consequence of the facts I pointed out above, this sentence has no
>surviving referent.
In your dreams. Property rights are a rather recent creation, American
Indians believed that no person could own land, and that most all "property"
was collective, more or less "on loan" from the Gods. Obviously, every
system has people using things, but for you to try to extrapolate this into a
natural right of property is silly. You can, of course, believe whatever you
want. But its an article of faith, not a scientific fact.
>>HINT: To prove an hypothesis it has to falsifiable. You posit natural
rights
>>as having an objective existence. Provide a test of this hypothesis.
>>Otherwise, it's just opinion.
>
>Simple test: if socialism normally works with real people in national
>quantities, then either there is no "natural law" or most current
>proponents are 180 degrees off.
OK, Sweden, Germany, and many states with a Social democratic system do
better in most measures than the United States which is more liberal.
Obviously, the Stalinist ecnomies fell apart due to massive
burearucratization, among other things. But comparasion of different
economic shows that different assumptions all work rather well. I think
Sweden tops the list in most categories.
>If we have contradictions in our conception of natural law, this only
>proves that our conception is inaccurate.
It proves no such thing. It shows that either the conception is inaccurate,
or there is no such thing as "natural law."
> There are contradictions in
>our conception of *many* kinds of natural law; for example, in
>physics, relatively and quantum mechanics *each* work in the domains
>where we can currently apply them, but there is an area we cannot
>currently apply either where they lead to contradictory conclusions.
>Thus the physicists know that at least one of them is not quite right,
>but are unable to determine what correction is needed. From this
>would you conclude that there are no fundamental laws of physics?
No. Social reality is different than physical reality. We act according to
the meaning things have, and those come from culture and experience. We are
not simply molecules interacting in some pre-determined way, but thinking,
feeling, human beings who can choose and act according to their beliefs.
> Your argument boils down, so far, to natural law is
>>simply whatever behavior allows us to survive and evolve.
>
>Do you have a problem with that? Perhaps you would prefer that your
>ancestors had not survived and evolved?
The problem is that at such an abstract level the notion of "natural law" is
meaningless. What happens (and what happens with you guys) is that you find
a way to interpret your personal political views into a conception of natural
law which is so abstract that almost anyone could do the same. This way you
try to HIDE the fact that you represent one of many POSSIBLE political paths;
instead, you claim you offer the RIGHT political view, and that this is
proven by "NATURAL LAW." This, I submit, is dishonest. Natural law is
unproven, no one knows what it means for social systems. No political
ideology, be it libertarianism or Marxism can claim to be following it. It
is better if we focus on CHOICE and what the CONSEQUENCES are for different
choices.
All that has been written about natural law in these posts by you guys is
abstract, based on assertion, and unsupported by evidence. It's interesting
speculation, but meaningless for politics.
-scott
bab
>
> No, they would simply require a profit of more than 6%. That would make
> it a better investment. Of course you would have done it for the same
> reasons. Otherwise why did you build the factory instead of investing
> the capital?
That's the point -- I already have the factory. I could sell out for some
price, but it would be less than the cost of a new factory. If you don't
want to use the cost of a factory, you can use the cost (and time) to set
up a distribution network, which I already have and the competitor would
have to build from scratch.
> >Let's say my price per widget is $5, with a marginal cost of $2 and a
> >fixed cost of $100,000. If I sell 100,000 then my cost is $300,000 and my
> >profit is $500,000 minus $300,000 = $200,000.
> >
> >If a competitor came in and we split the market, we would each sell 50,000
> >units.
>
> Assuming you split the market, but if his widget were better, cheaper,
> and/or he settled for a lower profit margin, he could command more than
> 50% of the market. Of course to, remember he can scale his factory to
> meet the lower production rates, thus would not need to build a factory
> capable of producing 100,000 units, but one of producing say 50,000 units
> which would reduce his capital outlay.
Well, if my uncle was a woman he'd be my aunt. I was using an example for
illustration. You can always come up with assumptions that lead to other
conclusions. What if the competitor had a blood feud with me and was a
multibillionaire who got his jollies by bankrupting me? Etc.
Actually, I would be in a better position to retain most of the market,
assuming I was equally aware and intelligent as my potential competitor.
Defense is easier than offense. So I think the assumptions I made were
reasonable.
> The lowest price I could sustain would be $4/unit, which would be
> >my per unit cost ($100,000 fixed plus (50,000 * $2 variable) = $200,000
> >total cost divided by 50,000 units = $4). The lowest cost the competitor
> >could sustain is $5.20/unit ($100,000 fixed plus $60,000 interest plus
> >50,000*$2 variable = $260,000 divided by 50,000 units = $5.20).
>
> Oh, you don't want to gain at least 6% return on your capital? If so
> why are you in business?
My investment is already sunk. I'm not evaluating where to put my
capital, it is already in the business. Once it is in, I can't get it all
back. It isn't liquid any more, the way the competitor's money is.
> >So, if I'm charging more than $4/unit, I am charging more than I would in
> >a competitive market, and am making "monopoly profits". But, if I am
> >charging less than $5.20/unit, it is not worth the cost for a potential
> >competitor to break my monopoly. If I price above $5.20 then it would be
> >profitable for them to do so, potentially. But until then I am safe, even
> >though I am charging 25% more ($5 vs $4) than I would under competiton.
>
> However, if through new or better manufactoring processes your competitor
> has lower fixed and/or variable costs. He could potentually produce his
> widgets for less.
Yes, again you can assume away any point in an economic example. I had
previously pointed out that a monopoly usually couldn't be sustained over
time. Not only is more efficient competition a factor, but tastes change,
and substitutes are found. The entire point of this example was to show
that it is possible for someone to make profits from a monopoly which are
more than they would make under competition, but which are not enough to
entice a competitor into the market. You can have more than one situation
where no one has incentive to change.
> This is a very limited and simplistic view of business, and under any
> but perfect theoritical conditions competitors will develop for your
> products. Compete or die.
Obviously. There's little point in illustrating simple concepts with
complex real-world cases. That's why assumptions are made. Don't confuse
business management with economic theory.
Scout
>Let me give a hypothetical example. Let's say I own a widget factory. The
>factory cost me $1,000,000 to build. I am able to supply enough widgets
>to meet the demand in my market. Demand is relatively price inelastic
>(ie, does not change much with changes in price).
>
>If a potential competitor was looking at the situation, s/he would
>realize that an investment of $1,000,000 would be required. If the cost
>of money is, say, 6%, that means they would have to produce an extra
>profit -- more than me -- of $60,000 per year just to cover the cost of
>capital.
No, they would simply require a profit of more than 6%. That would make
it a better investment. Of course you would have done it for the same
reasons. Otherwise why did you build the factory instead of investing
the capital?
>Let's say my price per widget is $5, with a marginal cost of $2 and a
>fixed cost of $100,000. If I sell 100,000 then my cost is $300,000 and my
>profit is $500,000 minus $300,000 = $200,000.
>
>If a competitor came in and we split the market, we would each sell 50,000
>units.
Assuming you split the market, but if his widget were better, cheaper,
and/or he settled for a lower profit margin, he could command more than
50% of the market. Of course to, remember he can scale his factory to
meet the lower production rates, thus would not need to build a factory
capable of producing 100,000 units, but one of producing say 50,000 units
which would reduce his capital outlay.
The lowest price I could sustain would be $4/unit, which would be
>my per unit cost ($100,000 fixed plus (50,000 * $2 variable) = $200,000
>total cost divided by 50,000 units = $4). The lowest cost the competitor
>could sustain is $5.20/unit ($100,000 fixed plus $60,000 interest plus
>50,000*$2 variable = $260,000 divided by 50,000 units = $5.20).
Oh, you don't want to gain at least 6% return on your capital? If so
why are you in business?
>
>So, if I'm charging more than $4/unit, I am charging more than I would in
>a competitive market, and am making "monopoly profits". But, if I am
>charging less than $5.20/unit, it is not worth the cost for a potential
>competitor to break my monopoly. If I price above $5.20 then it would be
>profitable for them to do so, potentially. But until then I am safe, even
>though I am charging 25% more ($5 vs $4) than I would under competiton.
However, if through new or better manufactoring processes your competitor
has lower fixed and/or variable costs. He could potentually produce his
widgets for less.
This is a very limited and simplistic view of business, and under any
James A. Donald
zero.
>James, as you well know, perfect competition in capitalism leads to zero
>overall profit.
>
> [...]
>
> This is a basic economic fact of
> capitalism and I'm amazed that you are trying to deny it. Where did you get
> your information about classical capitalist economic theory?
Under conditions of perfect competition there is no *excess* profit --
that is to say the return on capital tends to a uniform level in all
industries, falls to the level necessary to attract investment.
Stock market analysts get very excited about industries, such as the
gravel industry and the computer software industry, which commonly
generate excess profit -- profit higher than the competitive rate
needed to attract capital.
From the rarity of such cases, we may conclude that perfect
competition is an adequate approximation for most of the economy.
>Have you studied economics much? I suspect not, given your apparent
>misunderstanding of how capitalism is said to operate under perfect market
>conditions. I suggest taking a college course in econ and asking your
>instructor about the existence of profit under conditions of perfect
>competition in capitalism.
It really is fascinating how Erb parades his ignorance with double the
arrogance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com
Donald R. McGregor
:>> The lowest price I could sustain would be $4/unit, which would be
:>> >my per unit cost ($100,000 fixed plus (50,000 * $2 variable) = $200,000
:>> >total cost divided by 50,000 units = $4). The lowest cost the competitor
:>> >could sustain is $5.20/unit ($100,000 fixed plus $60,000 interest plus
:>> >50,000*$2 variable = $260,000 divided by 50,000 units = $5.20).
:>>
:>> Oh, you don't want to gain at least 6% return on your capital? If so
:>> why are you in business?
:>My investment is already sunk. I'm not evaluating where to put my
:>back. It isn't liquid any more, the way the competitor's money is.
I'd like to see you try to pitch _this_ to the board. Presumably your
factory is worth something, even as salvage value. There is a very
real opportunity cost involved in keeping your capital investment
where it is, rather than selling out and dropping it into something
else. (This new competitor might be willing to buy you out, for
example, or a third party might want to buy your factory. Looks like
quite a deal to me, so presumably it has a hefty market valuation.
So by not selling the company is forgoing the return its capital
might get somewhere else.)
--
Don McGregor | An armed code review is a polite code review
mcg...@crl.com |
scott_erb
>>So, if I'm charging more than $4/unit, I am charging more than I would in
>>a competitive market, and am making "monopoly profits". But, if I am
>>charging less than $5.20/unit, it is not worth the cost for a potential
>>competitor to break my monopoly. If I price above $5.20 then it would be
>>profitable for them to do so, potentially. But until then I am safe, even
>>though I am charging 25% more ($5 vs $4) than I would under competiton.
>
>However, if through new or better manufactoring processes your competitor
>has lower fixed and/or variable costs. He could potentually produce his
>widgets for less.
>
>This is a very limited and simplistic view of business, and under any
>but perfect theoritical conditions competitors will develop for your
>products. Compete or die.
No, his logic still holds. It's possible for a monopoly, once established
(especially once things are payed for, meaning they don't have start up costs
and capital costs) to undercut the price of almost any competitor. Of
course, if the competitor does do it cheaper through lower costs, it is
possible to break into a monopolistic or oligopolistic market. It is,
however, increasingly unlikely when technology is at a premium (the
oligopolisitic market could have the resources and information to stay ahead
of the technological changes) or when start up costs become larger.
In fact, a study of ANY advanced industrialized country shows a tendency
towards oligopoly in many industries, a trend started early on before
government regulation (in fact a trend which helped cause government
regulation in many cases). The naive belief in the utopian magic of
competition is out of touch with reality. This isn't to say capitalism
doesn't work -- mixed market capitalism does seem to work quite well. It
just means that the utopia espoused by some of a pure capitalism with no
regulation and everyone competiting without exploitation is a pipe dream. It
is disproven by economic theory and more importantly, history.
-scott
Eric B. Baum
>Actually I believe a monopolist can take advantage of the monopoly in
>certain circumstances.
>If there are high barriers to entry (large capital requirements, for
>example, or the need to set up distribution channels -- I'm not
>considering government-imposed barriers) then the monopolist needs only to
>keep profits low enough that it is not worthwhile for a competitor to
>enter the business. This can be a higher level than what a competitive
>market would clear at.
Right, so you claim that by not engaging in monopolistic abuses a monopolist
could theoretically enjoy his monopoly.
Of course, the government could remove this monopoly, assuming they have
correctly assessed the situation, and are not, say, acting at the behest
of some interest group, or, say, being simply mistaken,
by splitting up the monopolist, causing increased costs (according to your
positted example) and thus causing both new companies to charge more
than the monopolist was before.
Do you have some actual example in mind where prices were kept high
by a monopolist without the benefit of government imposed barriers to
entry?
--
-------------------------------------------------------
Eric Baum I speak for myself, not my employer.
"It often happens that the universal belief of one age, a belief
from which no one...could be free without an extraordinary effort
of genius or courage, becomes to a subsequent age, so palpable an
absurdity that the only difficulty is, to imagine how such an idea
could ever have appeared credible."
--John Stuart Mill
Eric B. Baum
>In article <46u3g8$b...@shellx.best.com>, jam...@echeque.com says...
>>> In perfect competition there is NO PROFIT due to price
>>> competition
>>
>>Scott Erb's knowledge of economics is distinctly entertaining: If
>>businessmen were to make no profit, why would they produce goods?
>>
>>Are we to understand that under conditions of perfect competion,
>>nobody would produce anything?
I didn't see the original context of this, and I hate to do it,
but I must rise to the defense of Erb.
Under perfect competition, if there is profit to be made,
someone should enter to make it, underselling till there is zero
profit.
This is why its hard to make money in commododities.
Of course, this profit comes after the businessman pays himself a
reasonable salary (which is a cost) representing his opportunity
cost somewhere else... i.e. he could go to work for someone else who
would pay him.
It also may come after some risk reward- people might not enter
an inherently risky market like growing sugar- if their expectation
is zero but their risk is high.
Also, this is a static model and talks about commodities.
This is why you get product diffrentiation- so people can make
a profit on something unique, like say, Coke, which only the Coca Cola
company can sell.
Also people make money in the interim by doing things better and
cutting costs, until their competitors figure out how to catch up.
But basically, the capitalist system tends in equilibrium to
drive profit to zero. Which is great for consumers!
Eric B. Baum
>Scout (sc...@sma.com) wrote:
>>
>
>> >Let's say my price per widget is $5, with a marginal cost of $2 and a
>> >fixed cost of $100,000. If I sell 100,000 then my cost is $300,000 and my
>> >profit is $500,000 minus $300,000 = $200,000.
>> >
>> >If a competitor came in and we split the market, we would each sell 50,000
>> >units.
>>
>> >my per unit cost ($100,000 fixed plus (50,000 * $2 variable) = $200,000
>> >total cost divided by 50,000 units = $4). The lowest cost the competitor
>> >could sustain is $5.20/unit ($100,000 fixed plus $60,000 interest plus
>> >50,000*$2 variable = $260,000 divided by 50,000 units = $5.20).
>>
>> >a competitive market, and am making "monopoly profits". But, if I am
>> >charging less than $5.20/unit, it is not worth the cost for a potential
>> >competitor to break my monopoly. If I price above $5.20 then it would be
>> >profitable for them to do so, potentially. But until then I am safe, even
>> >though I am charging 25% more ($5 vs $4) than I would under competiton.
>>
>previously pointed out that a monopoly usually couldn't be sustained over
>time. Not only is more efficient competition a factor, but tastes change,
>and substitutes are found. The entire point of this example was to show
>that it is possible for someone to make profits from a monopoly which are
>more than they would make under competition, but which are not enough to
>entice a competitor into the market. You can have more than one situation
>where no one has incentive to change.
One bizarre thing about this example is that you are assuming that the
quantity of widgets sold is constant. Usually, when you have competition,
you have lower prices and more widgets sold.
In fact, you are assuming that the monopolist is selling for less than
the price would be if two people built factories to compete.
So your example is a fine theoretical example of how a monopolist could
keep out competition, but it is also a fine example where any attempt to
bust up the monopolist would hurt the consumer.
Of course, in practice, busting up monopolies is not motivated by desire to
help the consumer, it is motivated by desire to help business interests
with friends in government.
And even if the gov't was angelic, the decision would involve predictions
of the business future which no-one is capable of making.
And, usually, the widgets aren't interchangeable- there is product
diffrentiation.
And, after the first company has built its plant, a few years later,
there's some technological progress making it cheaper for a competitor
to enter, or making it so the new plant will produce better widgets and
capture the market, so the monopoly couldn't be sustained anyway.
And on and on. This theoretical example by itself is an argument
against anti-trust intervention.
Dena L Bruedigam
>A Libertarian society is not an anarchy.
>Would some of you please *read* the slightest bit
>about libertarians before jumping off a cliff?
True. The Libertarian Party platform clearly advocates a minarchist form of
government, not anarchy. Some libertarians are anarchists but anarchy is not
an official Libertarian position.
--Dena L. Bruedigam
brued...@osu.edu
bab
> No, his logic still holds. It's possible for a monopoly, once established
> (especially once things are payed for, meaning they don't have start up costs
> and capital costs) to undercut the price of almost any competitor. Of
> course, if the competitor does do it cheaper through lower costs, it is
> possible to break into a monopolistic or oligopolistic market. It is,
> however, increasingly unlikely when technology is at a premium (the
> oligopolisitic market could have the resources and information to stay ahead
> of the technological changes) or when start up costs become larger.
Another scenario is that another firm takes a long range view and takes
losses for a period to establish itself, as a strategic move to enter
that business (because it thinks long range profit will justify the
move). This requires subsidization from other lines of business, and a
long range strategic view.
> In fact, a study of ANY advanced industrialized country shows a tendency
> towards oligopoly in many industries, a trend started early on before
> government regulation (in fact a trend which helped cause government
> regulation in many cases). The naive belief in the utopian magic of
> competition is out of touch with reality. This isn't to say capitalism
> doesn't work -- mixed market capitalism does seem to work quite well. It
> just means that the utopia espoused by some of a pure capitalism with no
> regulation and everyone competiting without exploitation is a pipe dream. It
> is disproven by economic theory and more importantly, history.
> -scott
The question is where the regulation should come from. The method that
has been tried, and has not really worked very well, is threats from the
government to arrest/fine/shut-down those who don't toe the line. As you
point out, profitseekers left to their own devices can create a
non-optimal situation where they can overcharge and not be disciplined.
Another type of regulation is to develop a healthy consumer cooperative
sector, which can act as a balance to the tendencies to overcharge. While
coops have their weak points (innovation, for example) they can serve the
function of providing an alternative to those who seek excessive profits.
A coop has the same people as both owners and customers, so they can't
"exploit" themselves. They provide a ceiling for prices, although their
inefficiencies often keep them from being the firm with the lowest
prices. Because their purpose is to serve their members, rather than
maximize profit for the owner, they would be immune to being bought out
by a monopoly-seeker.
Cooperatives can provide a market-based solution to the problem of
monopoly and oligopy. They can replace other government services as well.
For example, they can develop safety and health regulations and enforce
them through their choice of suppliers. Unlike politically developed
regulations (which are effectively costless to the regulators), they would
balance the benefits of the regulation against the extra costs.
My purpose here isn't so much to tout cooperatives as it is to point out
that the alternatives are not limited to greedy profitseekers vs coercive
regulation. There are ways to approach the problems that are consistent
with a free economy, but which have not been developed because society
relies on government to handle things by force.
JS
>
> OK, Sweden, Germany, and many states with a Social democratic system do
> better in most measures than the United States which is more liberal.
> Obviously, the Stalinist ecnomies fell apart due to massive
> burearucratization, among other things. But comparasion of different
> economic shows that different assumptions all work rather well. I think
> Sweden tops the list in most categories.
Sweden is going broke.
JS
Eric B. Baum
> No, his logic still holds. It's possible for a monopoly, once established
> (especially once things are payed for, meaning they don't have start up costs
> and capital costs) to undercut the price of almost any competitor.
Yeah? Name one example.
Gconklin
|In article <477q7v$r...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, Scott Erb wrote:
|
|
|>
|> better in most measures than the United States which is more liberal.
|> Obviously, the Stalinist ecnomies fell apart due to massive
|> burearucratization, among other things. But comparasion of different
|> economic shows that different assumptions all work rather well. I think
|> Sweden tops the list in most categories.
|
|
|JS
European democracies spend a lot less on medical care than
we do. If they spent what the AMA wants for us, they would
be even more broke than we are going from a greedy medical
system. Spending more and more for less and less is what
the AMA wants from us.
Dangerous Thoughts
Would some of you please *read* the slightest bit
about libertarians before jumping off a cliff?
The first round of this occured almost a decade ago.
I guess the people arguing that libertarians were
anarchists were Republicans.
This group seems much more like the Democratic Party.
Libertarians believe that there is a finite, limited
and even JUST purpose for government: to prosecute
the initiation of force and fraud. PLEASE UNDERSTAND
THIS IS AN OVER-SIMPLIFICATION, but the concept is
extremely important for you to grasp if you expect
to hold a conversation with a libertarian.
Regards,
Dangerous Thoughts
jw
>In article <474eu3$q...@guysmiley.blarg.net>, wa...@blarg.net says...
>
>>>James, as you well know, perfect competition in capitalism leads to
zero
>>>overall profit. (At least I assume you know this. If not, I
suggest you
>>>pick up Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations," or any economics
textbook).
>>
>>I have read Wealth of Nations, and several other economics textbooks,
>>and I have absolutely no clue where you picked up this idea.
>>
>>But I strongly suggest you put it back down.
>No, you are completely wrong here. This is a basic economic fact of
>capitalism and I'm amazed that you are trying to deny it. Where did
you get
>your information about classical capitalist economic theory?
But you have just been *told*: James has read, among other
things, _The Wealth of Nations_. You can't get much more
classical than that...
I notice that, after introducing that name, you now avoid
returning to the topic.
Here is a quote:
"the lowest ordinary rate of profit must always be somewhat
more than what is sufficient to compensate for occasional
losses..." (Chapter IX). Not zero, as you see...
and that is the *lowest* rate, not *the* rate.
See chapters IX and X for Smith's theory of profit - which
is outdated, but does not resemble what you said.
>>In a situation of perfect competition, every single trade produces a
>>profit to every party in the trade [...]
This much is *obviously* true: this is why the trade is made!
Trade is a form of cooperation, of voluntary division
of labor. It always increases profits, unless the
parties make a bad mistake.
>Have you studied economics much? I suspect not, given your apparent
>misunderstanding of how capitalism is said to operate under perfect
market
*Said* to operate? By whom? No *more* names dropped...
that is wise and prudent. This must be a lesson learned from
_The Wealth of Nations_:-)
>conditions. I suggest taking a college course in econ and asking your
>instructor about the existence of profit under conditions of perfect
>competition in capitalism.
Neither the instructor nor the course is named. Prudent.
>As I stated in my post, profits exist only as pointers to adjustment
(and for
>every profit there is someone losing money).
Really? And so the sum total of capital
must always be zero: it started with zero,
and losses always balance profits... Nice :-)
In truth, of course, for every profit, many other
people make profit; and no one need
lose, though some may.
Trade and industry are positive-sum games.
>If industry X makes a certain
>product and it sells for price Y, yielding a profit to X, then more
>industries will join X in making that product until Price Y(2) is
reached
>where no profit is made (as more join, the price drops due to the laws
of
>supply and demand).
This is a parody of the old vulgar-marxist argument that wages
must fall to the subsistence level. But at least *that*
primitive sophism had them stop at *subsistence* level, not
at *zero*! Now *why* would capitalists, in the above phantasmagoric
scenario, join industry X, when the profit there is already
close to *zero*? What drives those *starving* capitalists?
In truth, they will join X only if profit there exceeds
the already fat profit they were making in another industry
X1, where they have made their money! Or weren't they
making money? Then how will they "join", with what,
eh? Under conditions of perfect competition,
capitalists do compete, and that does, indeed,
drive profits down.
But simultaneously industries compete for capital,
and that drives profits *up*. Can the equilibrium between
these two drives be reached at *zero* profit rate?
No, never: for, when profits decrease, so does available
capital (it is made of these profits); and when capital
gets more scarce, profits are driven upwards.
Karl Dussik
>In article <474eu0$q...@guysmiley.blarg.net>, wa...@blarg.net says...
>
>>And yet, while many human societies do not have the *same* concept of
>>property that we have, no human society has yet been presented where
>>we do not find *some* concept of property and *some* percieved and
>>*enforced* property rights.
>
>Modern notions of property rights are recent. If you define "some" broadly
>enough, you could probably argue that, but in a capitalist sense of property
>rights, this is a rather new phenomenon (for a short discussion of this which
>is readable see "The Politics of Change," by Barner-Barry and Hody,
>pp.138-142)
If you restrict the term "property" to mean real estate, you might have an
argument, although there are references to ownership of land as far back as
Genesis.
If you include personal property in the definition, then the concept has
been around forever. Without it, there can be no concept of stealing
either.
>OK, Sweden, Germany, and many states with a Social democratic system do
>better in most measures than the United States which is more liberal.
Only because they never had to pay for their defense spending. The
capitalists in the U.S. paid for it. Had that not been the case, they
would either have been absorbed into the U.S.S.R. and/or they would be
far worse off economically than they are now (not to mention the benefits
of the Marshall Plan - once again, paid for by capitalism). Socialism
only survives as a parasite.
Karl Dussik | Standard disclaimer: Speaking only for myself. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as
possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." - Voltaire
bab
> In article <46f778$5...@news.iadfw.net>, mdh...@airmail.net says...
>
> I understand your argument, but the problem is that without government
> regulations against oligarchical actions there is a tendency in capitalism
> towards oligarchy and trusts. Presumably, libertarians would make those
> sorts of activities illegal since they get in the way of pure capitalism.
No, libertarians would not outlaw such actions. Libertarianism is about
process, not results. Assuming the actions were taken by people acting
without physical coercion, libertarians would not interfere. If some
people did not like economic trends that developed, they could work to
influence them in non coercive ways, just as they could with any social
trend they saw as negative.
This comment makes me wonder about your fundamental understanding of
libertarianism. Most political action is aimed at ends, rather than at the
processes by which we achieve those ends. Libertarianism is different, in
that it focuses exclusively on the process and does not judge the ends
achieved by noncoercive process. Individual libertarians judge the ends,
just like everyone else, (and differ in their judgements) but
libertarianism itself judges only the process by which the ends are
achieved.
Your comment makes me think that perhaps you think that libertarians are
in favor of capitalism and see libertarian methods as a means to that end.
There may be some anarcho-capitalists out there who think that, but I have
yet to meet any. Rather, they see capitalism as the natural result of a
free economy -- as the end resulting from the means.
> 1) Libertarians seem to assume that labor and capital are "equal." Each are
> co-negotiators who will reach an equilibrium wage due to supply and demand.
> However, if capitalists can control the demand for labor, and if the supply
> of labor is sufficiently large, then basically labor will have no power
> vis-a-vis capitalists. Labor can, of course, unionize, but union busting is
> easy in such circumstances.
The labor market is a market. It would be very difficult for anyone to
control the labor market, either as supplier or buyer. "Capitalists" are
not a monolith, but are a huge variety of firms, in competition with each
other more than with the workers. Back when transportation and
communications were more difficult it was possible for a company to
achieve something of a monosony (I hope I have that right -- the buyers
equivalent of a monopoly) in a local area. But today such an effort would
be "broken" the same way a strike is broken -- the workers would go
elsewhere.
Another approach is for workers to develop ownership stakes in firms, so
they can influence it. You sound like you are using the model of the
robber barons -- industry controlled by a few men for their own profit --
and that is not how the economy works these days.
> Unions only become effective when they have
> influence on government, but that is already a step away from real
> libertarianism (in the capitalist libertarian sense.)
Left-libertarians are even more opposed to union involvement with
government and politics than are right-libertarians. Read some of what the
IWW has to say about political involvement, for example. And with good
reason -- they were nearly destroyed because they would not participate in
the government sponsored union system. They saw -- correctly -- that it
would destroy the real strength of the workers, to benefit the political
class (including the union bureaucracies).
Eric B. Baum
> No, his logic still holds. It's possible for a monopoly...
I absolutely can't understand why you guys are hung up on monopolies
in the market place, of which there is not a single example absent
government intervention (in favor of the monopoly)
whereas our society is absolutely awash with numerous powerful
government monopolies, such as schools, post office, cable TV, utilities,
taxis, regulatory bureaucracy, etc etc.
What do you expect from a monopoly? Desultory service and high costs.
What do we get from the schools? 1/3 of high school seniors can't read
at a basic level, and the amount we're spending on the schools has gone
up by a factor of 4 in the last 35 years, after inflation, per student.
Can you imagine a more devastating monopoly than that?
P. Marks
On Thu, 2 Nov 1995, JS wrote:
> In article <477q7v$r...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, Scott Erb wrote:
>
>
> >
> > OK, Sweden, Germany, and many states with a Social democratic system do
> > better in most measures than the United States which is more liberal.
> > Obviously, the Stalinist ecnomies fell apart due to massive
> > burearucratization, among other things. But comparasion of different
> > economic shows that different assumptions all work rather well. I think
> > Sweden tops the list in most categories.
>
> Sweden is going broke.
>
> JS
>
>
At the time of Germany's "economic miracle" (1949, then the 1950's and
1960's) its taxes were NOT higher than the United States (and its hidden
tax of inflation was lower).
Now Germany's taxes ARE higher - let us see how well it does.
Sweden avoided the massive capital waste of World War I and World and
World War II (and in the 1930's got a bonanza from trade with Nazi
Germany). Its taxes only really got out of control after 1970 - since
when its economic growth has been behind that of the United States.
Paul Marks.
scott_erb
>|Sweden is going broke.
>|
>|JS
>
> European democracies spend a lot less on medical care than
>we do.
Given the U.S. budget deficit, I don't think Americans are in much of a
position to criticize Sweden's balance of payments.
Also, the governing Social Democrats of Sweden are recognizing that the
Welfare state has to be kept in line to make sure incentives exist and
markets can operate effectively. They are doing a decent job, especially if
one compares them to other industrialized states.
Fun fact: Sweden tops the list of most private property -- 83% of Swedish
property is in private hands.
-scott
Kim Kinnison
>This is a parody of the old vulgar-marxist argument that wages
>must fall to the subsistence level. But at least *that*
>primitive sophism had them stop at *subsistence* level, not
>at *zero*! Now *why* would capitalists, in the above phantasmagoric
>scenario, join industry X, when the profit there is already
>close to *zero*? What drives those *starving* capitalists?
>In truth, they will join X only if profit there exceeds
>the already fat profit they were making in another industry
>X1, where they have made their money! Or weren't they
>making money? Then how will they "join", with what,
>eh? Under conditions of perfect competition,
>capitalists do compete, and that does, indeed,
>drive profits down.
>But simultaneously industries compete for capital,
>and that drives profits *up*. Can the equilibrium between
>these two drives be reached at *zero* profit rate?
>No, never: for, when profits decrease, so does available
>capital (it is made of these profits); and when capital
>gets more scarce, profits are driven upwards.
Exactly. Capital investment always seeks out the areas of greatest profit
potential. And ultimately capital comes from savings. In todays US economy,
from the investments of people saving for retirement, for their kids
education, etc. If there is great return from investment, people are going to
forego buying a new car this year in order to invest and be able to buy
a vacation house a few years down the road. If return on investment sucks,
they're more likely to pay off debt and spend in the present.
----------------------------------------------------------------
" Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let people have
guns ... why should we let them have ideas?" - Joseph Stalin
Greg Alt
>the State would "whither away" in the final stages of Communism, and so you
>could say that Marx was an ararchist
I'm sure Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) would have been surprised to
here this... considering that he was an anarchist before Marx was a
"Marxist". Godwin would be a bit surprised too, since I think he died
before Marx was born. I recommend reading "Marxism, Freedom, and the State"
which is a collection of writings by Mikhail Bakunin in the 1870's. I
think it clearly captures the anarchist's hatred of authoritarian
"socialism."
Also, by your logic, it would be more accurate to say that Marxism is a
flavor of anarchism, not the other way around. Though it is definitely a
very odd sort of anarchism... "First we have to take state power and smash
all opposition. Then when everyone completely obeys the state, the
absolute dictators will voluntarily give up all their power, since the
job of dictator will no longer be necessary" Yeah, right... Anarchists
believe that ends and means are very tightly connected. The ONLY way to
achieve an anarchist society is with anarchist means. That means no
seizing of power.
Also check out this Left Libertarian web page:
http://tigerden.com/~berios/liberty.html
>If you do not have private property (in an industrial society) then you
>have government control. You may call the government "society",
>"community", "the people", "the workers" (or whatever), it makes no
>difference.
I see, so a person refusing to pay rent to a landlord that lives hundreds
of miles away is a government, and the police the landlord sends to
evict the renter are not government. Interesting...
Greg
--
Videogames, Unicycling, and Anarchism: http://www.cs.utah.edu/~galt/
P. Marks
On Sun, 29 Oct 1995 Scott@.MISSING-HOST-NAME. wrote:
> In article <46u3g8$b...@shellx.best.com>, jam...@echeque.com says...
>
> >> In perfect competition there is NO PROFIT due to price
> >> competition
> >
> >Scott Erb's knowledge of economics is distinctly entertaining: If
> >businessmen were to make no profit, why would they produce goods?
> >
> >Are we to understand that under conditions of perfect competion,
> >nobody would produce anything?
>
> James McDonald's creative use of the "delete" key is entertaining and,
> essentially, dishonest.
>
> James, as you well know, perfect competition in capitalism leads to zero
> overall profit. (At least I assume you know this. If not, I suggest you
> pick up Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations," or any economics textbook).
> However, there are profits in certain industries to show where adjustments
> need to be made. Short-term profits cause people to shift from industry to
> industry, Smith's so called "hidden hand". Unfortunately, there are many
> reasons why this "hidden hand" doesn't function perfectly and perfect
> capitalism can't exist in the real world.
>
> Again, James, I suggest you stop deleting arguments and calling names.
> Everyone reading talk.politics.theory (or any of the cross posted groups) can
> see what you are doing. It hurts your credibility and does not damange my
> argument. Others are making decent, sometimes very good arguments against my
> position without resorting to such behavior. I suggest you do likewise.
> -scott
>
>
>
"Perfect Competition" is a technical term that emerged in late 19th early
20th century neoclassical economics.
It assumes (amongst other things) that all firms have the same costs.
One of the most important things in business in to do things better that
your competitors.
"Perfect competition" (like "perfect knowledge" and the rest of it), is
formalist stuff. In reality competition is a "discovery procedure" (to
use Hayek's phrase), it is about finding new ways to do things - or
different things to do.
This is one of the main areas were "Austrian" economists (like Hayek) have
attacked neoclassical economics over the last 100 years or so.
However (to be fair) many neoclassical economists have understood that
concepts like "perfect competition" are black board equation stuff.
Useful (perhaps) for certain academic purposes but not claiming to
describe either how the world is OR how it should be.
"Perfect competition" is NOT another term for "free market". A "free
market" would be one where one did not subsidies and did not get
government regulations to hit one's competitors.
"Perfect competition" would be when everyone know everything, there was
nothing to do or find out, and everyone's costs were the same.
Paul Marks.
James A. Donald
>Also check out this Left Libertarian web page:
>
>http://tigerden.com/~berios/liberty.html
This left libertarian page omits certain critical facts when it
describes the Spanish civil war.
It omits to mention how the "anarchist" leadership in August 1936
formed a goverment with the communists without consulting the workers.
It omits to mention how this government swiftly introduced a top down
command economy, substituting fear and violence for the profit motive.
Greg Alt
>>http://tigerden.com/~berios/liberty.html
>
>This left libertarian page omits certain critical facts when it
>describes the Spanish civil war.
>
>It omits to mention how the "anarchist" leadership in August 1936
>formed a goverment with the communists without consulting the workers.
>It omits to mention how this government swiftly introduced a top down
>command economy, substituting fear and violence for the profit motive.
I don't know what you are talking about...
Here is a quote from the page about the Spanish civil war:
"The CNT, which was in a central position to do this, refused. It opted for
collaboration and supported decree after decree undermining the revolution.
Objectively the leaders of the CNT and FAT became counter-revolutionary."
and another:
"The Central Committee was displaced in September 1936 when the CNT entered
that government. In November four members of the CNT entered the national
government in Madrid. Two of them were also in the FAI."
and more:
"The government knew it was very useful to have CNT representation,
it was an additional means of controlling the masses. However it must
be pointed out that the decision to enter the government was taken by
the National Committee without any consultation with the rank and file
membership. This was a real break from tradition, the necessity of acting
with a minimum of delay was the reason given by the leadership."
The page presents the view that most anarchists hold that the collaboration
was a violation of anarchist principles, that instead of helping to form a
united front against fascism it actually helped the stalinists sabotage the
war effort, and that it helped to destroy the revolution.
I would also like to point out that the stalinists made sure that the
CNT collaborators didn't have any real power in the government. I also
take exception to the idea that the stalinist government "substitut[ed] fear
and violence for the profit motive." Actually, they substituted fear and
violence for fear and violence. The stalinist government did everything
in their power to stop the revolution and prop up capitalism. To do this,
it was necessary to slaughter the anarchists.
Tim Starr
>In article <47agjf$o...@bessel.nando.net>, ghco...@bessel.nando.net says...
>>
>>In article <johnz-02119...@s3c2p2.aa.net> jo...@aa.net (JS) writes:
>
>>|Sweden is going broke.
>>|
>>|JS
>>
>> European democracies spend a lot less on medical care than
>>we do.
>
>Given the U.S. budget deficit, I don't think Americans are in much of a
>position to criticize Sweden's balance of payments.
The Swedish people weren't forced to bear most of the costs of waging the
Cold War. The American people were.
>Also, the governing Social Democrats of Sweden are recognizing that the
>Welfare state has to be kept in line to make sure incentives exist and
>markets can operate effectively. They are doing a decent job, especially if
>one compares them to other industrialized states.
>
>Fun fact: Sweden tops the list of most private property -- 83% of Swedish
>property is in private hands.
And what fraction of the Swedish people works for the State?
Where are Swedish securities traded? (Hint: it's not Sweden.) Why?
What's the Swedish suicide rate, compared to the American?
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL,
The International Society for Individual Liberty,
1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034...@compuserve.com
http://w3.ag.uiuc.edu/liberty/isil/isil.html
http://www.portal.com/~chan/libertarian/isil
ftp://ftp.shell.portal.com/pub/chan/libertarian/isil
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>Let me give a hypothetical example. Let's say I own a widget factory. The
>factory cost me $1,000,000 to build. I am able to supply enough widgets
>to meet the demand in my market. Demand is relatively price inelastic
>(ie, does not change much with changes in price).
>If a potential competitor was looking at the situation, s/he would
>realize that an investment of $1,000,000 would be required. If the cost
>of money is, say, 6%, that means they would have to produce an extra
>profit -- more than me -- of $60,000 per year just to cover the cost of
>capital.
>Let's say my price per widget is $5, with a marginal cost of $2 and a
>fixed cost of $100,000. If I sell 100,000 then my cost is $300,000 and my
>profit is $500,000 minus $300,000 = $200,000.
>If a competitor came in and we split the market, we would each sell 50,000
>units. The lowest price I could sustain would be $4/unit, which would be
>my per unit cost ($100,000 fixed plus (50,000 * $2 variable) = $200,000
>total cost divided by 50,000 units = $4). The lowest cost the competitor
>could sustain is $5.20/unit ($100,000 fixed plus $60,000 interest plus
>50,000*$2 variable = $260,000 divided by 50,000 units = $5.20).
Let me modify this example in a more typical manner.
Your competitor has some better technology. He's going to have to
spend only $800,000 to build a factory the same size as yours, and his
marginal cost is $1.50. Since he realizes he's entering into
competition with an established firm, he doesn't make as big an
up-front commission. He can only produce half as many widgets as you
-- in a factory that cost $500,000 to produce and has fixed costs 40%
what yours are.
So he only needs to provide $30,000 extra profit a year.
You lose half your market, are running your factory at 50%
utilization. He's maxed out. You've dropped your price to $4 each.
He has fixed costs of $40,000 plus marginal costs of $75,000, for a
total of $115,000 costs versus your $200,000. You aren't making a
dime profit. He's making $85,000 operating profit, or $55,000 after
interest is paid -- over 20% of revenue, over 5% of capital.
After 2 years, the R&D he is funding (that you can't) allows him to
increase production 10% and lower marginal cost 10%. In exchange he
drops prices 5%. You can't afford to match him. So he cuts your
sales from 50,000 units to 45,000 units, and you have to raise prices
in order to break even -- you thank your lucky stars that he can't
produce enough to meet the total demand. But you hear he's thinking
about taking his company public and raising five million dollars of
new capital...
>So, if I'm charging more than $4/unit, I am charging more than I would in
>a competitive market
Incorrect. You run a business with intent to make money. If you
could not charge more than $4 per unit, and had no prospect of
changing that and no prospect of reducing costs, you would willingly
convert the plant to some other product -- or sell the plant at less
than book value (meaning the new owner has lower fixed costs and can
make a profit at that price), and put the money into some other
investment.
>, and am making "monopoly profits".
As explained, repeatedly, not true. The existence of a profit is not
proof of a monopoly profit.
But, if I am
>charging less than $5.20/unit, it is not worth the cost for a potential
>competitor to break my monopoly.
As you can see, if you charge enough to break even, it is worth the
cost for a potential competitor to break your monopoly under certain
conditions.
scott_erb
>Under conditions of perfect competition there is no *excess* profit --
>that is to say the return on capital tends to a uniform level in all
>industries, falls to the level necessary to attract investment.
First of all, a post by a source not in general agreement with my position
has explained how capitalism by theory does not generate profits. So I'll
let you argue with him on this. You are obviously ignorant of the basics
of economic theory, and especially capitalist economics. You apparently
have faith in your belief. That is fine, I can tolerate fundamentalists
and fanatics, I assume you're rather harmless.
As usual, you simply ASSERT that this is the profit pure capitalism would
produce. You provide no evidence or justification. Typical.
>From the rarity of such cases, we may conclude that perfect
>competition is an adequate approximation for most of the economy.
James, you are now parading your ignorance for all to see! If perfect
competition is the adequate approximation of most of the economy, then
your main beef is with the libertarians who argue that government is
twisting economic results. But you obviously don't understand diddly
squat about economic theory. You're playing the internet game of "he who
talks loudest can assert whatever he wants." You lose.
Read: Robert Heilbronner, "The Wordly Philosophers," Herbert Grubel,
"International Economics," check out BOTH Friedman and Galbraith -- they
have differing views, but you can see that they start from some
fundamentally similar assumptions. John Maynard Keynes (and works about
him -- perhaps the most brilliant economist of the century) might help you
to understand quirks in how the capitalist system operates. I don't have
the rest of my econ books at hand now, but if you truly wish to educate
yourself on this topic, that could be a good start.
>It really is fascinating how Erb parades his ignorance with double the
>arrogance.
Talk about the pot calling kettle black! Geez.
-scott
bab
> Let me modify this example in a more typical manner.
>
> Your competitor has some better technology.
This "modification" destroys the point of the example by changing the
terms.
My point was only that it is possible for a monopolist to make profits in
excess of what would be possible under competition, but low enough that it
would not be worthwhile for a competitor to enter the market.
I have previously pointed out that there are many, many, ways that a
monopoly can be broken by market forces. The point of this example was
that there are some situations in which a monopolist may enjoy both
profits in excess of those achievable under competition, and a lack of
competitors.
Besides, it would be more likely for a rational monopolist to be aware of
the "better technology" and to use it to leverage their existing
advantage, than to allow a competitor to use it to get into the market.
It is possible for a game (and economics is a type of game, as in game
theory) to have more than one stable state. In this case the states are
(a) a monopoly making an excess profit of more than zero but less than
that which would attract competition, and (b) a competitive market which
drives excess profit to zero. The market will tend to stay in whichever
stable state it finds itself, until something new comes and upsets the
situation. Then it will settle into a stable state again, possibly but not
necessarily the same one.
New technology is "something new" that upsets the stable state, as can be
changing tastes or demographics, a change in the level of profit that
attracts competition, or many other things. Examples of things that might
move the market from (b) to (a) include the buyout or death of a
competitor, reduced market size, or new technology owned by one player but
not the others.
scott_erb
>>OK, Sweden, Germany, and many states with a Social democratic system do
>>better in most measures than the United States which is more liberal.
>
>Only because they never had to pay for their defense spending. The
>capitalists in the U.S. paid for it.
Really? The U.S. paid for the defense spending of Sweden, a neutral country?
What did we do, send them checks? Anyway, that is hardly enough to explain
the success of their economies, even if they had U.S. levels of defense
spending it wouldn't make much of a difference. It could also be that they
were smart enough to see that the Soviet Union would fall apart on its own
anyway.
> Had that not been the case, they
>would either have been absorbed into the U.S.S.R. and/or they would be
>far worse off economically than they are now (not to mention the benefits
>of the Marshall Plan - once again, paid for by capitalism). Socialism
>only survives as a parasite.
Your ignorance of history is astounding. The Marshall plan helped to the
tune $17 billion, but most of the growth and investment came later. Also,
it's unlikely any of these states would have been absorbed into the USSR even
without massive US spending. U.S. defense spending really only took off
after the Korean war, but that time a status quo had emerged on Europe. No,
your assertion is typical for people who don't like to admit that Social
democracy has worked and is working. I'm not saying it's superior to the
U.S. style, only that it can work. The evidence is there, and I can point
you to numerous books on the workings of the systems of Europe.
You can put your head in the sand and try to blame it all on the U.S. defense
spending if you want. They'll go on just fine, thank you.
-scott
P.S. This is not to say that they, like us, don't have problems. I
personally am very critical of aspects of all systems, and I think Sweden has
gone too far with the welfare state in some cases. However, I think the
basic system works at least as well as our own. The statistics suggest it
may work a bit better.
Karl Dussik
>In article <DHFqx...@anasazi.com>, ka...@anasazi.com says...
>
>>>OK, Sweden, Germany, and many states with a Social democratic system do
>>>better in most measures than the United States which is more liberal.
>>
>>Only because they never had to pay for their defense spending. The
>>capitalists in the U.S. paid for it.
>
>Really? The U.S. paid for the defense spending of Sweden, a neutral country?
> What did we do, send them checks? Anyway, that is hardly enough to explain
>the success of their economies, even if they had U.S. levels of defense
>spending it wouldn't make much of a difference. It could also be that they
>were smart enough to see that the Soviet Union would fall apart on its own
>anyway.
Well, the original reference was to Sweden, Germany, and other social
welfare states. And, I admit I did not word my post well. The U.S.,
of course, did not send any of these countries money for their defense.
We spent the money ourselves, which allowed them to spend their money
on domestic programs.
And I don't think you're aware of just how much we spent on defense. For
much of the 50's, 60's and 70's we spent almost 10% of GDP on defense.
Do you really want to claim that had these countries spent 10% of their
GDP on defense instead of the 1 or maybe 2% they actually did, that
wouldn't have made "much of a difference?"
As for the Soviet Union falling apart on its own, you don't know if that
would have happened or when. In the meantime, millions of people suffered
and died under their totalitarian rule.
>> Had that not been the case, they
>>would either have been absorbed into the U.S.S.R. and/or they would be
>>far worse off economically than they are now (not to mention the benefits
>>of the Marshall Plan - once again, paid for by capitalism). Socialism
>>only survives as a parasite.
>
>Your ignorance of history is astounding. The Marshall plan helped to the
>tune $17 billion, but most of the growth and investment came later. Also,
Oh, excuse me, I thought we were talking about present prosperity levels,
not those before the Marshall Plan's effects kicked in. In the 50's the
U.S. economy was booming (the reason we could afford to pay off our massive
debt from the war and pay for the Marshall Plan). Was Sweden more prosperous
than the U.S. then?
>it's unlikely any of these states would have been absorbed into the USSR even
>without massive US spending. U.S. defense spending really only took off
>after the Korean war, but that time a status quo had emerged on Europe. No,
I guess you haven't read about Soviet plans for a massive invasion of
Europe. Maybe Sweden wouldn't have been absorbed - maybe they would have
sold them weapons so they'd leave them alone.
>your assertion is typical for people who don't like to admit that Social
>democracy has worked and is working. I'm not saying it's superior to the
>U.S. style, only that it can work. The evidence is there, and I can point
>you to numerous books on the workings of the systems of Europe.
I don't say social democracy can't work. That would be like saying
parasites can't survive and reproduce. Social democracy just can't
work without a subsidy. Even in Sweden the capitalist sector of the
economy provides the funds for the social welfare sector. But once
the latter grows too large for the former the whole thing begins to
collapse. And isn't that what is happening throughout Europe now?
Aren't countries like Sweden experiencing slow or no growth and having
to cut back on social welfare spending? If social democracy worked
on its own, there would never be a need to cut back its spending, now
would there?
>You can put your head in the sand and try to blame it all on the U.S. defense
>spending if you want. They'll go on just fine, thank you.
I find it curious that those on the left, who consistently oppose U.S.
spending of defense because it's harmful to the economy can then turn
around and argue it makes no difference when comparing U.S. economic
performance to that of other countries. You can't have it both ways.
(I have never argued that defense spending is good for the economy, just
that it is a government's primary responsibility.)
>P.S. This is not to say that they, like us, don't have problems. I
>personally am very critical of aspects of all systems, and I think Sweden has
>gone too far with the welfare state in some cases. However, I think the
>basic system works at least as well as our own. The statistics suggest it
>may work a bit better.
Only if you ignore an "insignificant" 10% of GDP.
Karl Dussik | Standard disclaimer: Speaking only for myself. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality.
But while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality
in restraint and servitude." - Alexis de Tocqueville
Karl Dussik
>
>First of all, a post by a source not in general agreement with my position
>has explained how capitalism by theory does not generate profits. So I'll
>let you argue with him on this. You are obviously ignorant of the basics
>of economic theory, and especially capitalist economics. You apparently
>have faith in your belief. That is fine, I can tolerate fundamentalists
>and fanatics, I assume you're rather harmless.
[ lots deleted ]
>Read: Robert Heilbronner, "The Wordly Philosophers," Herbert Grubel,
>"International Economics," check out BOTH Friedman and Galbraith -- they
Is this the same Heilbronner who was on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer this
past week? This guy was arguing that the deficit didn't matter because all
businesses borrow for capital expenditures, ignoring the fact that 1) our
borrowing is for social welfare programs, and 2) we're having to borrow
more and more just to pay off interest on the debt - we're not touching
the principal. If this is the same guy, it's not worth reading any book
by someone who is either a complete fool (doubt that) or intellectually
dishonest or blinded by his ideology.
Karl Dussik | Standard disclaimer: Speaking only for myself. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
James A. Donald
> > > http://tigerden.com/~berios/liberty.html
jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald) writes:
> >This left libertarian page omits certain critical facts when it
> > describes the Spanish civil war.
> >
> > It omits to mention how the "anarchist" leadership in August 1936
> > formed a goverment with the communists without consulting the workers.
> > It omits to mention how this government swiftly introduced a top down
> > command economy, substituting fear and violence for the profit motive.
> I don't know what you are talking about...
>
> [Quotes extensively from the page criticizing the collaboration
> that led to what Orwell called "state capitalism]
There are large chunks of the page that say how well the economy
worked "once the profit motive was eliminated". All these
descriptions of a smoothly running economy describe the economy after
February 1937, at which time collectivization had been entirely
replaced by socialization, and Catalonia was running on a full
totalitarian command economy, with commands and capricious executions
flowing in one direction, and goods and services flowing in the other
direction.
In other words, while criticizing the transformation to "state
capitalism" you praise the economy at a time when it was 100% "state
capitalist"
> I would also like to point out that the stalinists made sure that the
> CNT collaborators didn't have any real power in the government.
False:
Anarchy eliminated by the CNT in August 1936. Starts to replace
collectivism with socialism.
Collectivism completely eliminated by February 1937
CNT discredited by the reappearance of privilege and powerlessness,
arrogance and impotence, wealth and poverty, brutality and fear.
CNT becomes powerless relative to the Stalinists in June 1937.
> I also
> take exception to the idea that the stalinist government "substitut[ed] fear
> and violence for the profit motive."
The Stalinist government did not do that: The "Anarchist" government
did that in the time period August 1937 to February 1937.
Eric B. Baum
>My point was only that it is possible for a monopolist to make profits in
>excess of what would be possible under competition, but low enough that it
>would not be worthwhile for a competitor to enter the market.
>
I don't think libertarians generally dispute this.
There are definitely times when monopolists or cartels can form
that benefit consumers and also the cartelists.
In particular, an example I've seen is hospitals.
By preventing hospitals from colluding, the government raises health care
costs, hurts service, and also hurts hospital profitability.
There was some case study of this a year or two ago I saw in mainstream
media- gov't in some New England state had caught on to this and
allowed collusion, lowering costs etc. For example by sharing
expensive equipment. Savings to consumer due to this collusion were
dramatic. I'm sorry I can't recall cite or details, maybe
someone out there can.
Government acting by force to prevent monopolists or cartels is
anti-libertarian.
Corporations entering into voluntary agreements to improve their profits
is, well, voluntary.
What I haven't seen is any example in the real world where such collusion
or monopoly situation raises cost to consumers.
scott_erb
pm...@york.ac.uk says...
>This is one of the main areas were "Austrian" economists (like Hayek) have
>attacked neoclassical economics over the last 100 years or so.
>
>However (to be fair) many neoclassical economists have understood that
>concepts like "perfect competition" are black board equation stuff.
>Useful (perhaps) for certain academic purposes but not claiming to
>describe either how the world is OR how it should be.
>
>"Perfect competition" is NOT another term for "free market". A "free
>market" would be one where one did not subsidies and did not get
>government regulations to hit one's competitors.
>
>"Perfect competition" would be when everyone know everything, there was
>nothing to do or find out, and everyone's costs were the same.
I agree with most of what you said. My argument is simply that the radical
utopian capitalists, who believe that no government regulations would lead to
no exploitation or collusion due to the "correct" operation of capitalism are
relying on how capitalism should work theoretically in the black board
equations that have no relation to reality.
That's why I call them "utopian capitalists."
In reality, many "real world" problems make the picture a bit more murky.
You are right that markets are necessary, and price deregulation is the only
real way markets can provide information to allow for efficient decision
making. ANY system trying to eliminate these will probably do quite poorly,
as the former East bloc proved. Also, competition is important. I'm not
disagreeing with markets or market competition.
I'm simply pointing out that some on the net are so enamoured with the
theoretical promise of perfect capitalism that they, like their counterparts
on the left who were enamoured with the theoretical promise of perfect
socialism, ignore the imperfections of the real world.
-scott
William B. Vogt
>In article <4774mv$q...@shellx.best.com>, jam...@echeque.com says...
>
>>Under conditions of perfect competition there is no *excess* profit --
>>that is to say the return on capital tends to a uniform level in all
>>industries, falls to the level necessary to attract investment.
>
>has explained how capitalism by theory does not generate profits. So I'll
>let you argue with him on this. You are obviously ignorant of the basics
>of economic theory, and especially capitalist economics. You apparently
>have faith in your belief. That is fine, I can tolerate fundamentalists
>and fanatics, I assume you're rather harmless.
He is right, and you can look in any undergrad text in microeconomics
to see this discussion. It is absolutely standard. From _Principles
of Economics_ by Amacher and Ulbrich (which happens
to be the nearest such book at hand): On page 510, "normal profit"
is defined as "The opportunity cost of captial and enterepreneurship.
This is the level of profit that is necessary for a firm to remain in
a competitive industry." Also "normal profit is part of the implicit
cost structure of firms". On page 508, we see that "economic profit"
is "The return to the firm in excess of both the explicit and implicit
costs of production" Finally, on page 546, "The model of pure competition
is such that the firm and industry are driven to equilibrium at zero
***economic profit***" (emphasis mine). There is an expansion and
interesting discussion of the difference between economic "rents" and
economic "quasi-rents" later beginning on page 549.
So, in pure competition (sometimes called perfect competition or pure or
perfect capitalism), there are zero economic profits. There may still
be positive accounting profits.
As I say, any standard micro text will help you with this. The nearest
thing to a standard introductory econ text is Paul Samuelson's book
(whose title I am blanking on).
>As usual, you simply ASSERT that this is the profit pure capitalism would
>produce. You provide no evidence or justification. Typical.
>
>>From the rarity of such cases, we may conclude that perfect
>>competition is an adequate approximation for most of the economy.
>
>James, you are now parading your ignorance for all to see! If perfect
>competition is the adequate approximation of most of the economy, then
>your main beef is with the libertarians who argue that government is
>twisting economic results. But you obviously don't understand diddly
>squat about economic theory. You're playing the internet game of "he who
>talks loudest can assert whatever he wants." You lose.
>
>Read: Robert Heilbronner, "The Wordly Philosophers," Herbert Grubel,
>"International Economics," check out BOTH Friedman and Galbraith -- they
>have differing views, but you can see that they start from some
>fundamentally similar assumptions.
Would you mind giving a cite where either Friedman or Galbraith claimed
that perfect competition caused zero profits (as distinct from zero
economic profits)? It would be fascinating to see a 20th Century
economist making this mistake.
-- Bill
William B. Vogt
>In article <47agjf$o...@bessel.nando.net>, ghco...@bessel.nando.net says...
>>In article <johnz-02119...@s3c2p2.aa.net> jo...@aa.net (JS) writes:
>
>>|Sweden is going broke.
>> European democracies spend a lot less on medical care than
>>we do.
>Given the U.S. budget deficit, I don't think Americans are in much of a
>position to criticize Sweden's balance of payments.
The U.S. budget deficit is quite low by European standards and especially
as compared to Sweden's.
-- Bill
scott_erb
>Well, the original reference was to Sweden, Germany, and other social
>welfare states. And, I admit I did not word my post well. The U.S.,
>of course, did not send any of these countries money for their defense.
>We spent the money ourselves, which allowed them to spend their money
>on domestic programs.
We allowed them to spend it on domestic programs? I don't think you're
wording that well either. We chose to spend money on defense, they chose to
spend less on defense. And, in fact, they were potentially the battlefield
in a war that may have simply affected U.S. and Soviet interests, so they
were risking more than we were.
>And I don't think you're aware of just how much we spent on defense. For
>much of the 50's, 60's and 70's we spent almost 10% of GDP on defense.
>Do you really want to claim that had these countries spent 10% of their
>GDP on defense instead of the 1 or maybe 2% they actually did, that
>wouldn't have made "much of a difference?"
Just think of what we could have done if we hadn't spent so much money on
defense, huh? Heck, we might not even be in debt so far. However...
>As for the Soviet Union falling apart on its own, you don't know if that
>would have happened or when. In the meantime, millions of people suffered
>and died under their totalitarian rule.
...
>I guess you haven't read about Soviet plans for a massive invasion of
>Europe. Maybe Sweden wouldn't have been absorbed - maybe they would have
>sold them weapons so they'd leave them alone.
The Soviets had plans to invade Europe, the U.S. had plans to attack the
Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and other areas. Does that mean that the U.S.
was planning to take over the world? The existence of plans is different
than actually being able to accomplish it. In any event, the Europeans made
their choices and did quite well -- and continue to do quite well. The U.S.
benefited from its economic and political position due to its role as a
superpower. The U.S. did help Europe, but Europe also helped the U.S., both
economically and in terms of the military balance.
>I don't say social democracy can't work. That would be like saying
>parasites can't survive and reproduce. Social democracy just can't
>work without a subsidy.
Illogical. Your use of the term "parasite" is wrong -- if anyone has been
parasitical it's been the U.S. with its massive deficit spending and trade
deficits. Social Democratic countries are making money on their own, they
aren't living off of someone else. Your term is illogical.
> Even in Sweden the capitalist sector of the
>economy provides the funds for the social welfare sector. But once
>the latter grows too large for the former the whole thing begins to
>collapse. And isn't that what is happening throughout Europe now?
Nope. Perhaps that's wishful thinking on your part, but it's not reality.
In fact, the economic situation throughout Europe has improved over the past
year, just as it has in the U.S. Germany was doing better than the U.S.
until the costs of reunification forced it to pump hundreds of billions of
dollars into the East, but now that is starting to pay off and the German
economy is improving. In a list of the top ten wealthiest per capita
countries Germany, Sweden, Japan, Austrialia, and four others who I forget
were above the U.S. (I think Austrialia was number one). The citizenry and
workers in those countries enjoy health care benefits, five weeks paid
vacation every year, and a secure old age due to retirement and pension
plans. Of course, you may claim they aren't "free" because they have
government programs. Well, you can vote your way, they can vote theirs.
It's working there, and most people there wouldn't give it up for our system.
You can call them parasites, but at least they are comfortable, wealthy, and
they have good labor/industry relations.
In other words, the real world shows that the "theories" some on the internet
propagate about how welfare states can't work, health care systems won't
work, etc., etc. are WRONG. They have been FALSIFIED by real evidence from
the real world. If you wish, I can provide you with a reading list about the
poltical economies of western Europe.
>Aren't countries like Sweden experiencing slow or no growth and having
>to cut back on social welfare spending? If social democracy worked
>on its own, there would never be a need to cut back its spending, now
>would there?
Wrong. Only idealogues would say that an extreme can work well, and they
have gone to an extreme in a few cases and need to adjust. I personally have
been arguing with European friends for a few years that the welfare systems
are getting to a point where they may interfer with markets and decrease
incentives. I don't think that's happened in Germany yet, but it has
happened in Sweden. But neither the Conservatives nor the Social Democrats
would dare dismantle the basics of the social democratic state in
Scandinavia. And recent economic stats from Sweden show a healthy economic
upswing underway. Actually, the stats from all industrialized countries are
similar since we're so interconnected in the world economy anyway.
>I find it curious that those on the left, who consistently oppose U.S.
>spending of defense because it's harmful to the economy can then turn
>around and argue it makes no difference when comparing U.S. economic
>performance to that of other countries. You can't have it both ways.
Well, don't assign me arguments I haven't been making. I think that what was
harmful to the U.S. economy was deficit spending, esp. since 1980. Social
Democratic countries are market economies and connected to the international
trade system. Furthermore, as Peter Katzenstein argued, sometimes a
corporatist system of government-management-labor cooperation is more
efficient than pure market economics for a small state trying to compete in
the world market. His book "Small states in World Markets" shows the
economic logic of both a social and liberal corporatist approach to the
political economy.
But the bottom line is simple: there is nothing inherently better or worse in
terms of the ability to compete economically about either a liberal mixed
capitalist system or a corporatist/social democratic system. The evidence is
VERY clear on that.
-scott
scott_erb
>>Read: Robert Heilbronner, "The Wordly Philosophers," Herbert Grubel,
>>"International Economics," check out BOTH Friedman and Galbraith -- they
>
>Is this the same Heilbronner who was on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer this
I really doubt it was. I think there's another economist named Heilbronner
out there. But if it was, it doesn't matter so much for this particular
book. The book is an historical review on the economic philosophies of
different "economists" over the past couple hundred years. It's fascinating
reading, and I don't think even the most hard core utopian capitalist (sorry,
I had to get my dig in there!) would find it objectionable.
>past week? This guy was arguing that the deficit didn't matter because all
>businesses borrow for capital expenditures, ignoring the fact that 1) our
>borrowing is for social welfare programs, and 2) we're having to borrow
>more and more just to pay off interest on the debt - we're not touching
>the principal. If this is the same guy, it's not worth reading any book
>by someone who is either a complete fool (doubt that) or intellectually
>dishonest or blinded by his ideology.
Blinded by ideology...hmmm...I could make a comment about some of the
"libertarians" on this group... There is an argument (originally made by
economists of the GOP during the Reagan years) that the economics of the
deficit are irrelevant. The argument boils down to the notion that all money
spent -- whether on defense, transfers, or paying off loans, ends up getting
pumped back into the system anyway. It's not the level of the deficit that
matters, but where the money is going.
I personally find that argument flawed for a number of reasons. However, I'm
not ready to call somebody a complete fool or intellectually dishonest for
making it. Heck, I won't even call you "utopian capitalists" that! We're
dealing in issues that have no clear black and white answers, and I'll admit
you may be right and I may be wrong. I don't think so, though, so I'll keep
arguing ;)
-scott
Attila Csanyi
dbru...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dena L Bruedigam) writes:
>
>dange...@delphi.com (Dangerous Thoughts) writes:
>
>>A Libertarian society is not an anarchy.
>>Would some of you please *read* the slightest bit
>>about libertarians before jumping off a cliff?
>
>True. The Libertarian Party platform clearly advocates a minarchist
form of
>government, not anarchy. Some libertarians are anarchists but anarchy
is not
>an official Libertarian position.
>
>--Dena L. Bruedigam
> brued...@osu.edu
Would they at least read the Declaration of Independence? There's no
better definition of a libertarian form of government: one that is
created by (and fully responsible to) the people to secure our rights.
Period. That's libertarianism. For further clarification, read the Bill
of Rights (I call it the Bill of Prohibitions) to spell out soem of the
things people in government MUSTN'T do.
Attila Csanyi
James A. Donald
>Under perfect competition, if there is profit to be made,
>someone should enter to make it, underselling till there is zero
>profit.
Opportunity cost of capital.
You have to make a reasonable return on capital, or else the capital
will be put to some better use, or stuffed into a mattress.
The normal definition of profit -- and Scott's ignorance is too vast
for him to be using subtlelties -- is the return on capital and
entrepeneurship. Obviously if the return is too small, the
entrepeneur will not organize, and the capital will not be available,
even if the return is finite.
scott_erb
Mark.O...@AtlantaGA.attgis.com says...
>The two would be better off. Definitely. Unfortunately for them, they
>also have to convince the thousands of would be competitors to leave
>them alone. Your view of the world is way, way to simplistic.
No, firms collude (an oligopoly can have more than two firms, it could have
tens of firms, maybe more), and if start up costs are high, it's hard for
other firms to enter the markets. Why do you think we have anti-trust laws?
>But they can only recoup if no new competitor emerges. Secondly if
>the startup has merely gone dormant, he can resume production as
>soon as the monopolist raises prices again.
And the oligopolists can then lower prices again. Sooner or later, it
becomes expensive for a newcomer to keep delaying production.
>Any above normal profits attracts competition. That's a fact of
>capitalism.
Profits per see attract competition. But conditions can prevent competition
from being fair and competitive. THAT is the real world. Secret deals,
collusion, undercutting the opposition...happens all the time.
>An assumption on your part. Not yet proven. All companies have cost
>of capital.
Depending on if they own their factories and machinery or are paying them off
still, that cost can be very different for different factories. And for
established oligopolies, most of these costs have been paid.
>You are assuming that they have economies of scale. Besides,
>economies of scale aren't all they are cracked up to be. You are
>forgetting about the dis-economies of scale.
Still, large corporations have distinct advantages, oligopolies in collusion
can do much better than competitors who try to take them on.
>I am still waiting for an example of such a scenario in the real world.
>So far, in order to defend your position, you have kept having to add
>more and more outlandish preconditions.
One reason this isn't happening here is government regulation to fight
collusion. Of course, companies still try. They try to fix tire prices, they
try to fix drug prices, etc., etc. In the third world MNCs come in and
routinely destroy existing enterprises by taking them over. Look at mineral
mining throughout most of the third world.
>It's never happened. This is the fourth time I have asked you for
>examples. You are the one who claims that these examples of yours
>exist. Well, cite them.
At the turn of the century it was happening. That's why we passed laws
against it. At that time capital and wealth was increasingly being put into
the hands of a smaller minority. Anti-trust laws and other laws designed to
enhance competition have helped prevent that. I'm arguing against removing
those laws because your "theory" (with no real world evidence, I might add)
says they won't...if those economic equations work the way you think they
should. And we know how often economic theory is flawless, don't we?
>Profits can never drop below the cost of funds. Your view of the
>world is way to simple. Sounds precisely like you have read one
>beginning text on economics, in which they have removed 90% of
>the complicating factors, in order to make the concepts easier to
>understand. You really need to try one of the sophmore texts.
Spare me your attempts at insult. I've taken econ at both the undergrad and
graduate levels. I recognize someone so enamoured with an abstract theory
that they ignore the realities of how people can manipulate the situation
with money and power to avoid what the theory based on numerous assumptions
suggests the world should look like.
You are at least consistent in your arrogance. You really believe that you
understand economic theory better than the people on the fed, the people who
make the laws, the people who regulate...those people deal with the real
world every day. You're dealing with theory and assumptions about how the
world should operate, if everything works out as it says it should in your
textbook.
-scott
scott_erb
>At the time of Germany's "economic miracle" (1949, then the 1950's and
>1960's) its taxes were NOT higher than the United States (and its hidden
>tax of inflation was lower).
>Now Germany's taxes ARE higher - let us see how well it does.
Germany's taxes have been higher for some time, but in 1976 it was called
"Modell Deutschland" becaue the Social Democratic government of Helmut
Schmidt (an accomplished economist -- proving one can be a Social Democrat
and still be well versed in economics, for all the utopian capitalists out
there who assert that's impossible) did better than most other states in
weathering that recession. In 1991-92 Germany's economy was steaming along
faster than the U.S. Then the reality of unification came and since then
there have been massive transfers of money East, and huge increases in the
taxes. However, despite a downturn in 192-94 for those reasons, the German
economy is starting to perk up again, and the investments made in the East to
make new, high tech factories, etc., are slowly starting to pay off.
Money taxed and pumped into the economy and money untaxed and pumped into the
economy still represents money being pumped into the economy, after all.
>Sweden avoided the massive capital waste of World War I and World and
>World War II (and in the 1930's got a bonanza from trade with Nazi
>Germany). Its taxes only really got out of control after 1970 - since
>when its economic growth has been behind that of the United States.
Comparing growth rates is a bit midleading because there are MANY factors
affecting growth rates, and because it is assuming the same starting point.
Also, many would argue that a trade off between growth and social justice is
acceptable -- one shouldn't sacrifice all social justice for growth, or all
growth for social justice, but a balance can be found. Sweden's balance may
just be different than that of the U.S.
The systems are different. They work. They may not be better or worse, just
different.
-scott
Kim Kinnison
>>If you do not have private property (in an industrial society) then you
>>have government control. You may call the government "society",
>>"community", "the people", "the workers" (or whatever), it makes no
>>difference.
>I see, so a person refusing to pay rent to a landlord that lives hundreds
>of miles away is a government, and the police the landlord sends to
>evict the renter are not government. Interesting...
The question comes down to: who shall make the decisions regarding what shall
be produced, and how resources shall be used, and how the products shall be
distributed.
In capitalism, the decision-makers are the owners of the property in question.
If the owners are not to decide (or if there are to be no "owners" of
factories and such), then the decision-making capability by default goes to
the people who can declare their decisions and have people with guns come
around to make sure their decisions are followed (i.e., the government, under
whatever name you call it).
Kim Kinnison
>It is possible for a game (and economics is a type of game, as in game
>theory) to have more than one stable state. In this case the states are
>(a) a monopoly making an excess profit of more than zero but less than
>that which would attract competition, and (b) a competitive market which
>drives excess profit to zero. The market will tend to stay in whichever
>stable state it finds itself, until something new comes and upsets the
>situation. Then it will settle into a stable state again, possibly but not
>necessarily the same one.
>New technology is "something new" that upsets the stable state, as can be
>changing tastes or demographics, a change in the level of profit that
>attracts competition, or many other things. Examples of things that might
>move the market from (b) to (a) include the buyout or death of a
>competitor, reduced market size, or new technology owned by one player but
>not the others.
There is really no such thing as a "stable" market. Tastes change, technology
changes, etc. In an expanding market that started with only one provider
(namely the originator of a new product), it's possible for the originating
firm to keep the market to itself by keeping the profit level low enough that
there is no incentive for competitors to enter the market (because more
profitable alternatives exist). In a contracting market, where resources are
already committed and can't easily be liquidated, the tendency is for profit
levels to approach zero.
But, so what? In any case, the consumer enjoys the best price
consistant with having at least one viable provider.
jw
>
>>>> In perfect competition there is NO PROFIT due to price
>>>> competition
>>>
>>>Scott Erb's knowledge of economics is distinctly entertaining: If
>>>businessmen were to make no profit, why would they produce goods?
>>>
>>>Are we to understand that under conditions of perfect competion,
>>>nobody would produce anything?
>
>but I must rise to the defense of Erb.
>
>Under perfect competition, if there is profit to be made,
>someone should enter to make it, underselling till there is zero
>profit.
To *enter* with his *money*, the someone must
*leave* some other
field where his money is now; his profit there is
not zero (or else how did he make the money?) - and he
won't accept a lower profit in the new field. Therefore
he won't undersell till there is zero profit.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin (wa...@blarg.net) wrote:
>> Let me modify this example in a more typical manner.
>>
>> Your competitor has some better technology.
>This "modification" destroys the point of the example by changing the
>terms.
Precisely. The competitive pressures of the real world, including but
not limited to technological advances, destroy monopolies.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>In article <474eu3$q...@guysmiley.blarg.net>, wa...@blarg.net says...
>>>James, as you well know, perfect competition in capitalism leads to zero
>>>overall profit. (At least I assume you know this. If not, I suggest you
>>>pick up Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations," or any economics textbook).
>>
>>I have read Wealth of Nations, and several other economics textbooks,
>>and I have absolutely no clue where you picked up this idea.
>>
>>But I strongly suggest you put it back down.
>No, you are completely wrong here. This is a basic economic fact of
>capitalism and I'm amazed that you are trying to deny it. Where did you get
>your information about classical capitalist economic theory?
Adam Smith, for starters. Common sense, for another: people will not
put resources at risk if there is no profit. If there is no profit,
there will be no trade.
>>In a situation of perfect competition, every single trade produces a
>>profit to every party in the trade and a cost (other than missed
>>opportunities) to no other party. So, clearly, there must be a net
>>profit.
>Have you studied economics much? I suspect not, given your apparent
>misunderstanding of how capitalism is said to operate under perfect market
>conditions. I suggest taking a college course in econ and asking your
>instructor about the existence of profit under conditions of perfect
>competition in capitalism.
Did that. In perfect market conditions, profits exist. In the
absence of profits, neither perfect nor imperfect market conditions
exist.
>As I stated in my post, profits exist only as pointers to adjustment (and for
>every profit there is someone losing money). If industry X makes a certain
>product and it sells for price Y, yielding a profit to X, then more
>industries will join X in making that product until Price Y(2) is reached
>where no profit is made (as more join, the price drops due to the laws of
>supply and demand). In fact, due to delays in information, chances are that
>prices will dip below Y(2) to mean that firms making the product will suffer
>losses. Those firms will then seek out a product where there is some
>profits, and the same thing starts. Mathematical equilibrium occurs when
>supply and demand are set at a price which does not yield profit for any
>product. However, since changes take place in consumer preferences and
>technology, shifts occur which cause prices to rise or fall, thereby yielding
>short term profits. These point to how the system should adjust to maintain
>equilibrium. Profits thus occur (but at a level equal to loses) as
>adjustments are made.
Oh, that's it -- you are also assuming a limitless supply of all
resources, and the complete absence of change in technology,
population, or popular style.
Maybe that's why we disagree. I prefer even my fantasies ("perfect
market conditions") to be enough like reality that ordinary humans can
relate.
>There are a number of reasons why perfect capitalism is impossible:
That's a different statement not directly relevant to what we *were*
discussing.
It happens to be true, but not necessarily for the reasons you state.
Most of your reasons are highly dependent on what one means by
"perfect capitalism".
> 1) it assumes labor and capital have equal footing. In the above example,
>capitalists are unable to simply lower labor prices to acheive profits
>because that would decrease demand.
They *can* simply lower labor prices to achieve profits. If they
correctly evaluate all the consequences of the lower labor prices, it
might even work. One annoying consequence is that oftentimes the more
productive laborers will prefer to sell their labor to someone else
who hasn't lowered labor prices.
>In reality, exploitation is feasible
>because one seeks other markets, and because demand can shift from labor to
>the management class, creating a disparity between the rich and the poor.
You have some error here. There *is* a disparity between the rich and
the poor. No possibility of being seen to *create* one.
However, in any quasi-capitalist society the economic possibilities of
catering to the rich are less than the economic possibilities of
catering to the middle-class and perhaps even less than the economic
possibilites of catering to the poor. There simply aren't that many
rich people.
> 2) firms can't adjust quickly -- you can't go from making cars to Madonna
>posters just because demand changes.
It is not necessary for firms to adjust instantly. Perfect market
conditions can treat the cost of plant conversion (including time
cost), and of holding temporarily-unused manufacturing capacity, as
costs. This is generally left out of academic examples because
putting all costs in dollar terms and assuming no other costs exist
makes the examples much easier to understand.
> 3) capitalists easily find ways around perfect competition. Agreements to
>keep prices higher, dropping prices at the price of short term loses to drive
>competition out of the market, etc., have all been effectively used.
While these are all occasionally true (and clearly don't qualify as
perfect market conditions) their *significance* has not been shown
except in those cases where the government chooses to enforce the
anti-competitive practices.
> 4) capitalists tend to control governments and create regulations which
>help them (the one cause you seem to agree upon).
Distinguishing here between those who act as capitalists, and those
who hold a thoroughly capitalist economy to be a critical part of
their political ideals. The latter tend *not* to create regulations
which help them; however if they percieve that a regulation is going
to exist whether they wish it or not, they will tend to try to make
total regulation even-handed (which may be better for them than the
original proposal).
>Neo-classical economists, esp. John Meynard Keynes, point out that Adam
>Smith's version of perfect capitalism with no profits overall was inadequate
>because of the factor of time.
I've read Smith, and I've read Keynes. The notion that Keynes would
debunk Smith's ideas that Smith never expressed, doesn't surprise me
in the least.
> Shifts in technology and information delays
>can allow for the economy as a whole to grow, or, as in the case of the
>depression, continuous economic decline is just as possible. (Economists
>have completely debunked the myth that the depression was just a result of
>government policies).
Well, I'll agree with that. The depression could not have happened
without assistance from human nature and imperfect information. Human
nature is not caused by government policy, and imperfect information
only partially so.
However, every potentially fixable cause that I have heard of, that
actually had credibility as a cause, was a government policy.
James A. Donald
> Modern notions of property rights are recent. If you define "some" broadly
> enough, you could probably argue that, but in a capitalist sense of property
> rights, this is a rather new phenomenon (for a short discussion of this which
> is readable see "The Politics of Change," by Barner-Barry and Hody,
> pp.138-142)
I really hope that Scott Erb and company will visit some of the
remaining primitive savages in the Amazon, and say to one of them:
"Gee, what a nice collection of spears. I guess I will take one of
those spears back with me."
James A. Donald
In article <477q7v$r...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, Scott Erb wrote:
>> OK, Sweden, Germany, and many states with a Social democratic system do
>> better in most measures than the United States which is more liberal.
>> Obviously, the Stalinist ecnomies fell apart due to massive
>> burearucratization, among other things. But comparasion of different
>> economic shows that different assumptions all work rather well. I think
>> Sweden tops the list in most categories.
jo...@aa.net (JS) wrote:
>Sweden is going broke.
Not only is it going broke, but it also displays distinct symptoms of
a privileged nomenclatura above the law.
New Zealand, like Sweden, also attempted this "middle way" between
socialism and capitalism, and abandoned it not only because it was bad
for the economy, but because it manifestly failed to create equality
and social justice.
scott_erb
>
>Scott Erb wrote:
>> Modern notions of property rights are recent. If you define "some"
broadly
>> enough, you could probably argue that, but in a capitalist sense of
property
>> rights, this is a rather new phenomenon (for a short discussion of this
which
>> is readable see "The Politics of Change," by Barner-Barry and Hody,
>> pp.138-142)
>
>I really hope that Scott Erb and company will visit some of the
>remaining primitive savages in the Amazon, and say to one of them:
>"Gee, what a nice collection of spears. I guess I will take one of
>those spears back with me."
A nice cute example James, and typical of your style.
You don't refute anything I say, but you make some analogy with cute imagery
to hide the fact you can't refute it.
Again, quite cute.
And quite irrelevant to the argument at hand.
scott_erb
>
>
>Not only is it going broke, but it also displays distinct symptoms of
>a privileged nomenclatura above the law.
>
>New Zealand, like Sweden, also attempted this "middle way" between
>socialism and capitalism, and abandoned it not only because it was bad
>for the economy, but because it manifestly failed to create equality
>and social justice.
Unfortunately, your knowledge of comparative politics is based on ignorance.
There are many different "ways" of organizing one's economy, and many that
are corporatist/social democratic have results as good or better depending on
your criteria. (Again: see Peter Katzenstein, "Small states in world
markets," or John Freeman, "Politics and Markets"). You can assert all you
want that these have "failed," but any investigation into their situation
will demonstrate that they are operating quite well; their problems are no
more (and arguably less) severe than the problems facing the U.S.
I personally am one who has criticized (and still does criticize) what I see
as welfare state excesses. One can criticize the excess but still think that
the basic concept is sound.
-scott
scott_erb
These debates about radical utopian capitalism are getting very reptitious
because they are spread between many threads and debators. I'll try to focus
on unique points raised in this post.
In article <47fa2i$r...@guysmiley.blarg.net>, wa...@blarg.net says...
>Adam Smith, for starters. Common sense, for another: people will not
>put resources at risk if there is no profit. If there is no profit,
>there will be no trade.
...
>Did that. In perfect market conditions, profits exist.
Yes, as short term indicators for economic adjustment. (And, of course,
managers and business people earn salaries). In any event, how do you know
what will exist or not? What is a "perfect" market? Such thought
experiments are endeavors in theoretical abstraction and, as I've pointed out
elsewhere, the abstract equations and theories of economists have proven
flawed predictive tools in the real world.
>They *can* simply lower labor prices to achieve profits. If they
>correctly evaluate all the consequences of the lower labor prices, it
>might even work. One annoying consequence is that oftentimes the more
>productive laborers will prefer to sell their labor to someone else
>who hasn't lowered labor prices.
Perfect capitalism (as I've seen it defined) breaks down when too many
workers are out there and it becomes practically impossible (due to supply
and demand) to sell labor at a better price to someone else. Hence the 18
hour work days, child labor, etc., of the industrial revolution. Even today,
there are severe limitations (training, geography, etc.) on the ability to
simply switch jobs at will.
That, by the way, is one real world example of where "perfect theory" breaks
down. Most workers find it extremely difficult if not impossible to easily
switch jobs.
>However, in any quasi-capitalist society the economic possibilities of
>catering to the rich are less than the economic possibilities of
>catering to the middle-class and perhaps even less than the economic
>possibilites of catering to the poor. There simply aren't that many
>rich people.
So democracy should work just fine, shouldn't it?
>It is not necessary for firms to adjust instantly. Perfect market
>conditions can treat the cost of plant conversion (including time
>cost), and of holding temporarily-unused manufacturing capacity, as
>costs. This is generally left out of academic examples because
>putting all costs in dollar terms and assuming no other costs exist
>makes the examples much easier to understand.
Which does not deny the fact that in many cases conversion is practically
impossible due to the technology used, training of workers needed, and real
costs of conversion.
(about anti-competitive practices like collusion)
>While these are all occasionally true (and clearly don't qualify as
>perfect market conditions) their *significance* has not been shown
>except in those cases where the government chooses to enforce the
>anti-competitive practices.
But government restriction arouse because of such collusions. And if you
want to remove such restrictions, I suggest you would have the burden of
proof to show that this removal won't have a negative impact. I don't think
the theory of how capitalism should work is enough.
>Distinguishing here between those who act as capitalists, and those
>who hold a thoroughly capitalist economy to be a critical part of
>their political ideals. The latter tend *not* to create regulations
>which help them; however if they percieve that a regulation is going
>to exist whether they wish it or not, they will tend to try to make
>total regulation even-handed (which may be better for them than the
>original proposal).
You are right here. One reason why capitalism survived (and didn't fall
victim to the contradictions in the system Marx -- and capitalist economists
-- saw) is that the State became concerned with the survival of capitalism
writ large, and thus enacted regulations to prevent individual capitalists
from circumventing capitalism in order to maximize their own gain.
Capitalism survived because it became a mixed system, in other words. Even
that had problems in the thirties, but free trade saved it after the war.
Mark.O.Wilson
>
>In article <DHEB...@attatl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>,
>Mark.O...@AtlantaGA.attgis.com says...
>
>>>Once they have full market share, they can raise their prices. Since
the
>>>start up costs for other firms to enter the market are high, they can
>>lower
>>>prices and drive them out before they can get their footing.
>>
>>One, you are assuming that the agency that is entering the market is
>>a startup with little capital. It could just as easily be another
>established
>>corporation, with deeper pockets then the monopolist.
>
>This is probably the only way competition could develop. However,
two such
>large corporations would soon realize they could maximize their profits
>through collusion (each probably would want to expand to different
products
>and could together plot on how to split things). I forget the equations,
but
>it's easy to prove that collusion in such cases would maximize profits.
Only until a third company decides to join in.
> Each
>capitalist would be smart enough to see that would be the better long
run
>strategy than competition.
The two would be better off. Definitely. Unfortunately for them, they
also have to convince the thousands of would be competitors to leave
them alone. Your view of the world is way, way to simplistic.
>If a large number of corporations could enter and
>compete that would, of course, make collusion more difficult.
A large number of corporations can and will, enter and compete. The
promise of monopoly profits is just to great to resist.
>However, if it
>was a situation where start up costs were high and there were the issues
of
>technology and capital costs, it would be possible to limit those able to
>compete.
Limit, but not eliminate. Secondly, your criteria, severly limit the
number of applications.
>>Two, if you would do a little calculations, you will find out that
selling
>>at a loss to drive out competition is a loosing strategy for two reasons.
>>a) the monopolist has a much bigger market share, so the monopolist
>>will loose money much faster then the competitor.
>
>Not a problem. They have a lot more to lose, and they can recoup the
loses
>when the competitor drops out and they raise the prices.
But they can only recoup if no new competitor emerges. Secondly if
the startup has merely gone dormant, he can resume production as
soon as the monopolist raises prices again.
>Most likely,
>they'll keep prices at a level which discourages competition but still
>increases profits (e.g., like at a Walmart store in a small town).
Any above normal profits attracts competition. That's a fact of
capitalism.
>>b) all the competitor has to do to stop his loses, is to temporarily stop
>>selling into the market.
>
>And stop earning any money. Not a good strategy, esp. if rent is due,
>workers have to be paid, loans have to be repaid... As soon as they stop
the
>monopoly or oligopoly could raise prices again, only to lower them
when the
>competitor rejoins the market.
Remember, the startup has a lot of money socked away from the time
in which he was selling at monopoly prices.
>> Even worse, he can buy some of the product
>>that the monopolist is selling at below cost (increasing the
monopolists
>>loses) for re-sale at a time when the monopolist has given up this
>>suicidal strategy.
>
>This would work only in theory. In practice the oligopoly could offer
prices
>to particular buyers (probably wholesalers) and could also keep the
price
>just below the opponents in a way which keeps loses minimal.
If the monopolist only sells at these low prices to certain buyers, he
has just ceded the rest of the market to the start up.
>Also,
>monopolies might still make money even if the price is below the
competitors
>since they don't have start up costs,
An assumption on your part. Not yet proven. All companies have cost
of capital.
>they already have the technology and
>they already have economies of scale.
You are assuming that they have economies of scale. Besides,
economies of scale aren't all they are cracked up to be. You are
forgetting about the dis-economies of scale.
>They may be able to drive the
>competition out of the market and still make a profit!
I am still waiting for an example of such a scenario in the real world.
So far, in order to defend your position, you have kept having to add
more and more outlandish preconditions.
>>Three, you are assuming that there are no substitutes to the monopoly
>>product.
>
>Or that the monopoly/oligopoly could effectively extend control to the
>substitutes.
Not possible in the real world.
>All of this is very possible in theory (again, I don't remember
>the equations), and I think that the experience of the last 100+ years
shows
>it can happen in practice.
It's never happened. This is the fourth time I have asked you for
examples. You are the one who claims that these examples of yours
exist. Well, cite them.
>It's decreased due to anti-trust laws.
How can you get lower then zero?
>>Their greedy SOB's, but the laws of economics prevent the scenario
>>that you fear from happening.
>
>You're still stuck in your utopian theory. Economics isn't based on
laws,
>it's based on tendencies and psychology.
Which are often refered to as laws. You know, the law of supply and
demand. The law of dimishing returns. Etc.
>It's also done by people who can
>get around problems and figure out ways to avoid the problem of
declining
>profits which exist under perfect competition.
Profits can never drop below the cost of funds. Your view of the
world is way to simple. Sounds precisely like you have read one
beginning text on economics, in which they have removed 90% of
the complicating factors, in order to make the concepts easier to
understand. You really need to try one of the sophmore texts.
>This has been shown in
>history and is the reason why capitalism has constantly moved from a
more
>pure state to a mixed state.
Stated, but never demonstrated.
Please, for once, how about some examples.
--
Mark.O...@AtlantaGa.attgis.com
It ain't charity if you ain't using your own money.
Just because your mob calls itself a government, doesn't make it
legitimate.
Gun control means hitting your target.
People who claim that money doesn't matter, are usually living on
someone
else's money.
Society is a mental construct, formed by those people who are too
insecure
too handle the concept of people as individuals.
Mark Roddy
>In article <DH8nL...@mv.mv.com>, mro...@wattanuck.mv.com (Mark Roddy) wrote:
>
>> Anarchists in general believe in free associations (communities) so
>> the concept of FORBID is a little weak. If you wanted to create some
>> other form of social organization, say one where a small group of
>> elites control all the wealth, the media, the means of production, and
>> spend a lot of time fooling the rest of the people into thinking it is
>> the best of all possible worlds, then you would be free to do so.
>
>Really? Was that Durruti's philosophy? Laissez-faire for capitalists?
I've never read Durruti. Most of my opinions regarding anarchism come
from the American branch - i.e. Goldman, Berkman, the IWW. Kropotkin
and Bakunin are IMHO unreadable. I did spend some time with an old
wobbly, a fellow named Sam Dolgoff, who perhaps had the most profound
influence on my views regarding the community as the basic unit of
anarchist organization.
I think the point I was trying to make is that anarchism relies on
voluntary (free) associations (communitees) as the basic
organizational entity. As such, there is little coercion other than
ostracism and banishment. And also, it would be likely that other
forms of social organization, such as corporate capitalism, could
exist concurrently.
P.S. I admit that some anarchists would allow for coercive control
within an anarchist community, e,g, imprisonment or execution for
violent crimes. And certainly any community is entitled to defend
itself from threats of violence.
> Some
>leftist anarchists strike me as simply being extremely idealistic
>totalitarians - an attempt to have a Stalinist or Maoist state without
>Stalin or Mao, without a state apparatus. Capitalists, free-enterprise
>libertarians have no right to private property, so every left-anarchist
>becomes his own, unorganized OGPU.
>
Well personally I do think that it is possible for people to organize
their social systems such that production is communally owned and
operated. I also think that it is rather unlikely in my lifetime. I
think that this is very different from a command economy where the
state owns the means of production. Perhaps the most obvious
difference is scale. I'm not talking about anything larger than a
small town as 'a community' run on anarchist principals.
>The other trick is the "fooling the rest of the people" business. This
>often seems to allow left-anarchists (and other leftists) to pretend that
>free expression of opinion is a form of oppression, therefore
>illegitimate.
>
I do indeed think that Chomsky has a valid point regarding the degree
to which the mass media has been and is being used to perpetuate the
current system of corporate capitalism. In this regard, the web and
perhaps even this newsgroup represent a real threat to the monopoly of
opinion that has been enjoyed by 'the system' for most of this
century. This does not mean that I want to censure any expression.
Quite the contrary. I just think that what is being expressed over the
mass media is 'the party line' and the people have very much been
fooled, brainwashed, hoodwinked, deluded, whatever, into a very
narrow world view.
Greg Alt
First you write this.
In article <47dfv9$q...@shellx.best.com> jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald) writes:
>> >This left libertarian page omits certain critical facts when it
>> > describes the Spanish civil war.
>> >
>> > It omits to mention how the "anarchist" leadership in August 1936
>> > formed a goverment with the communists without consulting the workers.
>> > It omits to mention how this government swiftly introduced a top down
>> > command economy, substituting fear and violence for the profit motive.
And I point out that you are just flat out wrong by quoting a few
paragraphs from the page that criticised the leadership of the CNT
for collaborating with the government in September 1936. Instead
of arguing further (possibly trying to prove that it was Aug instead
of Sept, and that this discrepancy is significant), you bring up
additional arguments that appear to be as firmly based on fact as
your original erroneous charge. It seems obvious to me that your
goal is not to get at the facts, or you wouldn't have made the
original charge.
Since I don't believe you are debating in good faith, I would like
YOU to present evidence backing up your charges instead of just
making baseless assertions in hopes that I will waste an hour or so
of my time looking up the specifics only to have you present another
list of unbased assertions. If you present evidence to back up
your charges, I will take the time to look up the specifics that
disprove your charges.
Here are the claims you made:
1) The web page praises the economy only after Feb 1937
2) By Feb 1937, "collectivization had been entirely replaced by
socialization, and Catalonia was running on a full totalitarian
command economy, with commands and capricious executions flowing
in one direction, and goods and services flowing in the other
direction"
3) "Anarchy eliminated by the CNT in August 1936. Starts to replace
collectivism with socialism."
4) That the "reappearance of privilege and powerlessness, arrogance
and impotence, wealth and poverty, brutality and fear" was caused
by the CNT and not the Communists or other factions in the government.
Greg
--
Videogames, Unicycling, and Anarchism: http://www.cs.utah.edu/~galt/
Greg Alt
>In article <47bq64$e...@magus.cs.utah.edu> ga...@spades.cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
>>I see, so a person refusing to pay rent to a landlord that lives hundreds
>>of miles away is a government, and the police the landlord sends to
>>evict the renter are not government. Interesting...
>
>The question comes down to: who shall make the decisions regarding what shall
>be produced, and how resources shall be used, and how the products shall be
>distributed.
In an anarchist society, the producers will decide what shall be produced,
the people that use and develop the resources will decide how the resources
will be used, and the people that produce, distribute, and use the products
will decide how the products are distributed. btw, as far as I know Bill
Gates didn't produce Win95, it was a bunch of programmers.
>In capitalism, the decision-makers are the owners of the property in question.
>If the owners are not to decide (or if there are to be no "owners" of
>factories and such), then the decision-making capability by default goes to
>the people who can declare their decisions and have people with guns come
>around to make sure their decisions are followed (i.e., the government, under
>whatever name you call it).
In an anarchist society, the people that run the factory will make the
decisions and carry them out, and no one will own the factory. As you point
out, a government is a government regardless what you call it. A government
is when people make decisions "and have people with guns come around to make
sure their decisions are followed." As long as factory workers obey the
decisions made by the owners and their managers, the owners do not send
people with guns to force them to go along with the owners' decisions, but
the moment the workers refuse to go along with the decisions, the owners
always ultimately send people with guns and therefore constitute government.