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!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!faustus
From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Majority' rule
Message-ID: <2792@ucbcad.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 16-Nov-84 13:26:25 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.2792
Posted: Fri Nov 16 13:26:25 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Nov-84 04:42:15 EST
References: <545@charm.UUCP> <491@aluxe.UUCP> <477@amdahl.UUCP>, <789@bnl.UUCP> <1153@shark.UUCP>
Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group, Berkeley, CA
Lines: 101

> Let's leave aside foreign policy -- if you have a strong enough
> government to require one, of COURSE you're in trouble already.
> As for "economics", the fact that "economics" happens in a market
> without explicit control is enough for me -- you don't need to have 
> "decided" in advance, or by a few, as you would with foreign policy.

As I have said, I don't want to get into a big argument about the merits
or lassiez-faire economics, but your arguments don't make much sense. Sure,
economics happens all the time, but the question is whether it happens in
the way we want it to happen. I also don't think that your comments on 
foreign policy are terribly well thought-out.

>>> 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.
>
> No, Wayne.  (I note in passing your curious phrase:  "where the 
> government didn't have most of the power") In a system where the
> government cannot be used by the rich to keep the poor from becoming
> rich, economic power tends to spread out.  I'd love to hear the basis you have
> for believing that a few strong individuals would get it all.

In the late 19th century, the government excercised very little control 
over the economy, and a few people got all the money. This happened all
throughout the Industrial Revolution, and only ended when the government 
took an active part in regulating the economy and private enterprise.

> This is MOST interesting.  The notion that government is the only way
> to prevent bombings is one that I suggest you argue with Pinkerton.

Oh, you are advocating private armies to protect businesses. It is a very
short step from protection to active harassment of competitors, and before
long you have a small private war on your hands.

> >	You can make an awful lot more money in the private sector than
> >	in government, 
> 
> Not so.  One makes the most money being closely associated with the
> government, though not on the government payroll, I admit:
> 	
> 	The largest owners of land were the emperors, the relatives of
> 	emperors, and the intimate associates of emperors.  
> 	Livia, wife of Augustus and mother of Tiberius, became the
> 	largest property holder in the Roman Empire.  It is said that in
> 	terms of acreage owned, she was the largest private landowner in
> 	the history of the world.
> 						[ Max Shapiro,
> 						  "The Penniless Billionaires"
> 						  pg 50]
> A little more recently, Hugo Stinnes assembled the largest industrial
> conglomerate in history.  He did it with the collusion of the 1920's
> German government, which supplied him with low-interest loans
> (actually, its more complex than that, but it's what happened) 
> during a period of hyperinflation.  In the last
> nine months of 1923, the Stinnes concern made a PROFIT of over
> 428 QUADRILLION marks.  His PERSONAL estate was estimated to be
> over $1 billion in 1923 (about 4 octillion marks).  He was
> a member of the Reichstag.

Please give contemporary examples of American millionaires getting rich
through the government, please.

> >	In a completely
> >	free market, life would be nasty, brutish, and short 
>
> You're confusing "state of nature" with "free market".

Is there a difference?

> >	(except
> >	for the most ruthless, who establish monopolies and get incredibly
> >	rich).
> 
> Now this is a very often held, but quite puzzling idea.  Certainly
> if one COULD establish a monopoly, one would.  BUT -- find one.  One
> NOT backed by government, regulated by government, encouraged by
> government.  One that stays around for a long time.
> 
> Let me know if you find one.  I'm still looking.  In the meantime, 
> concede the monopoly point -- there's almost no indication that they
> are stable short of government intervention.  For backing, see
> "Machinery of Freedom", by David Friedman.  I'm also trying to
> get hold of a book called "Uncle Sam the Monopoly Man", but 
> I haven't read it.
> To anticipate you:  The phone company is not a natural monopoly, and was
> facing severe competition when it formed (you'll find reference for this
> in a Time magazine article written about the Bell breakup at about the
> time the breakup took effect).  

During the Industrial Revolution, again, there were numerous monopolies 
that disappeared only when the government passed anti-trust laws. 
Now the government does support some monopolies, like the Postal Service,
and I will agree with you that it should stop this. But without
government intervention, monopolies are inevitable. 

	Wayne