Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!pertec!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Propiganda, Sevener, Sykora, and MMT
Message-ID: <228@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11-Jun-85 18:55:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: kontron.228
Posted: Tue Jun 11 18:55:56 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Jun-85 10:27:44 EDT
References: <3750@alice.UUCP> <7800334@inmet.UUCP> <650@whuxl.UUCP>
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA
Lines: 81

> > 
> > >/**** inmet:net.politics / whuxl!orb / 10:42 am  May 28, 1985 ****/
> > >I repeat the phrase "blind adherence to the free enterprise myth" because
> > >that's what is repeated by Michael Sykora and many others on the net.
> > >When Mr. Sykora suggests that it is some sort of crime for *anyone* to pay
> > >taxes then I find this a ludicrous assumption even on the part of many
> > >Libertarians who in general support the myth that somehow leaving the
> > >government totally out of the economy will resort in the laissez faire 
> > >utopia.  
> > 

A "crime for *anyone* to pay taxes"?  Nonsense.  It's the way the taxes
are collected that is criminal; it is criminal that the government forces
people to pay taxes that are ostensibly "for our own good".  Don't distort
what libertarians say --- it makes it hard to believe that you are sincere
and honest.

> Alright, then you *don't* call it "Utopia".  The idea that you can have
> a situation of:
>     no taxes

Many of the expenses which are currently paid through governmental taxation
are likely to be privately provided services or charities, which will be
paid for by user fees and freely given contributions.  Overall, the total
of these is likely to be less than the taxes now collected because of the
higher efficiency of private services, and because many of the "services"
now provided by government are methods of redistributing wealth from taxpayers
to those with political pull (mostly NOT poor people, incidentally.)

>     no inflation

Inflation is the result of expansion of the money supply faster than an
increase in the supply of goods and services.  Even a money system based
on precious metals is subject to inflation if gold miners suddenly find
and exploit a previously unknown source.  However, this is much less of
a problem that the governmentally induced inflation which has been
besieging through much of this century.

>     no poverty

Libertarianism does not assert that poverty will go away; poverty will
always exist because of the individual differences in ambition, intelligence,
character, and to some extent luck --- "no poverty" is a straw man, and you
know it.

>     no unemployment

Frictional unemployment is a necessary part of free economy, and if
unemployment gets too low, it makes it difficult for employers to 
hire workers, reducing production capacity.  (Although driving up
the wages of workers can be a pleasant thing --- and low unemployment
rates might be quite advantageous.)

Structural unemployment is largely the result of minimum wage laws
and government restrictions on entrepreneurial activities by the poor.
A minor factor may be the tendency of governments to encourage 
helplessness by people with limited job skills.

>     no monopoly power

I am hesitant to say that *all* monopolies are the result of government
intervention in the economy, but I have no hesitation saying that I
have yet to find an example of a monopoly that wasn't the result of
government granted power or subsidies.  (Of course, remember that the
biggest most ruthless monopoly of all is the government.)

>     no pollution (without government intervention)

The argument (from me at least) is against prior restraint as a solution
to pollution --- removing the current legal protections for large
polluters is more effective than prior restraint.

>     no health hazards in the workplace (without govt intervention)
>       etc.

This subject has been thoroughly addressed by myself and others in 
previous postings.  Read them and criticize them piece by piece.

> I would say such notions are, if not called "utopia", definitely
> utopian.
>                        tim sevener   whuxl!orb