Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/23/84; site ucbcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!faustus
From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Majority' rule
Message-ID: <2778@ucbcad.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Nov-84 00:32:29 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.2778
Posted: Thu Nov  8 00:32:29 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 11-Nov-84 19:46:16 EST
References: <1790@inmet.UUCP>
Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group, Berkeley, CA
Lines: 90

> 3. People know what they want better than any group of planners.

	When it comes to politics, that's not true. Maybe they know what
	kind of dishwashing detergent they like, but when it comes to
	things like foreign policy, environmental protection, economics,
	etc, they don't. (Or at least they don't know how to get what they 
	want).

> 4. Power corrupts, either by attrition (the people with power become
>    corrupt) or by attraction (corrupt people attempt to gain that 
>    power).

	True, but the problem is, what system is least corruptable? In a
	system where the government didn't have most of the power then
	a few strong individuals would eventually get it all, and they
	would probably be more corruptable than the government we have now.

> 6. In a free market, only transactions desired by both parties to the
>    transaction will take place.  (This is a surprisingly deep concept,
>    consider that it means that the whole structure of a free market will
>    be determined, not by ideals, or designs of what people should be like,
>    but what people ARE like -- what they desire and what they produce).

	That doesn't necessarily mean that a completely free market
	will work very well. Look at what happened in the late 19th and
	early 20th centuries, when markets simply became too big for
	complete freedom to be a viable policy. There were massive
	depressions and crashes, because of the lack of control of the 
	economy by the government. (I shouldn't talk about economics
	though, because I really don't understand it...)

> 7. Private property is a moral concept.

	I doubt that you can argue that there are any objective moral
	concepts at all, but assuming that you mean that private property
	holds a status in Western culture similar to that held by rights
	to live, etc. I would agreee with you. I will also agree that
	it is a very useful concept, and any infringements upon it
	have to be for a very good reason.

> Given that a government does exist, if it wields power it will become corrupt.
> Unlike (say) a corrupt insurance corporation, it will not be destroyed by
> market competition with its (presumably less corrupt) competitors.
> Once corrupt, it will grow, if it can, in order to extend its power.

	The sort of corruption that occurs in private enterprise is not
	the sort that makes them less competitive, it is things like
	bombing their competitors and establishing monopolies, which
	makes them more competitive. And I really don't see what sort of
	government corruption you are talking about. It really doesn't
	need to extend its power, but rather avoid detection (things like
	embezzelment and graft).

> There are equilibrium forces, in a republic -- the government dare not
> offend enough to lose the popular vote.  In a totalitarian society, it
> must avoid revolution.  These strictures are so much less rigorous than
> the market forces that dictate moral behavior there that they allow for
> free play by the power-hungry, compared to what their scope would be in
> a private firm.

	 What do you mean? I don't see how that follows. Why should a lack
	 of power hungry individuals in a private firm make it more 
	 likely to succeed?

> Governments will claim to be doing what they do for the good of the people.
> The problem is that governments understand that good less well than the people
> involved.  A truly beneficent government would be economically redundant 
> (the market already assures that mutually agreeable trades will happen)
> and depending on what power the government owned, it would become a 
> festering roost for the power-hungry (those who could not become powerful
> in a market because they don't serve human desires could become powerful
> in a government because they may oppress).

	In a free market, things aren't always as idyllic as you suppose.
	You can make an awful lot more money in the private sector than
	in government, and I suspect that government really doesn't
	attract those people who want power the most. In a completely
	free market, life would be nasty, brutish, and short (except
	for the most ruthless, who establish monopolies and get incredibly
	rich).

> I suspect this is what has happened to the relatively small government
> in the US.

	I think that the U. S. Government has grown simply because people
	want more from it. They want welfare, defense, regulation, education,
	and so on, and it has expaneded to provide these things. Of course,
	a good percentage of its expansion is probably just plain fat...

		Wayne