Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 v7 ucbtopaz-1.8; site ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!mwm From: mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Measure of success? Message-ID: <761@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> Date: Thu, 21-Feb-85 22:37:23 EST Article-I.D.: ucbtopaz.761 Posted: Thu Feb 21 22:37:23 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 24-Feb-85 01:36:01 EST References: <257@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> Reply-To: mwm@ucbtopaz.UUCP (Praiser of Bob) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 55 Summary: In article <257@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: >Now. I am not a Libertarian. I am not a Capitalist. Nor am I a Socialist, >Communist, or any other "-ist" you care to throw at me. I think all >economic systems that exist are bullshit because they fail to measure the >success of an economy by the ONE THING THAT REALLY MATTERS: the standard of >living of those under the system. Tim, I think I disagree with you about what "really matters." Then again, I may not mean the same thing that you do by the phrase "standard of living." What I consider important is free time. How much time do those under a system have where they aren't worrying about where there next meal comes from, where they are going to sleep that night, where to get enough CRAY time to run the gas flow model they are interested in, or doing something that someone else wants them to do. I can't concieve of how standard of living could mean the same as what I mean by free time. Somebody who likes wandering around on the beach, fishing and collecting what the ocean drags in, and dislikes all the things associated with a high-tech society would be better off living in a shack on the beach than the way I live (he can spend more time roaming around on the beach, etc.). However, I have nice modern toys, so I would have to claim a higher standard of living than he has. Likewise, I could give up time I spend doing things I enjoy to make more money, and thus raise my standard of living. But this costs me free time - which I think is more important. Obviously, if I'm spending my time meeting obligations that someone else forces on me, that is cutting into my free time. On the other hand, if I've voluntarily taken on those obligations, then I'm doing something *I* chose to do. These line of thought is what led me to start calling myself a libertarian. Not keeping more of my tax money, or trying to avoid large governments, but because I don't like other people running my life for me. Now, let's go back and look at that last infringement on free time - doing something that someone else wants you to do. Working qualifies, whether you are working for a wage, or are your own boss. You still have to deliver product that *someone else* wants, not that you want. The optimum solution is to not have to work at all. Unfortunately, that usually requires someone else to do work to provide what you consume. But not always; if what you are consuming comes from a sufficiently automated plant, then no other person had to give up their free time to provide for you. My understanding of history is that the freer the market, the faster it automates tasks. This, combined with restraint of trade implying that you are keeping someone from doing what they want to be doing for no good reason, is enough to convince me that the free market is a good thing. From this, the answer to the question "what do we do when you can build a robot to do anything a man can do in a lifetime of training" is simple: switch to a socialist economy. Since you no longer require human labor to keep the economy running, you no longer have to force people to work. Not "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," but "from each according to his wants, to each according to his wants!"