Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: What is "capitalism"? (Explorations of "self-interest")
Message-ID: <654@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Jun-85 12:27:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: whuxl.654
Posted: Wed Jun 12 12:27:03 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Jun-85 01:53:07 EDT
References: <298@spar.UUCP> <2380028@acf4.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 40

The whole discussion of "how do I know what's best for me?"
or "who knows what's best for me?" as usual frames the question
in totally individualist assumptions.
 
The question in politics is not necessarily "what's best for me?"
The question is "what's best for *us*? What's best for everybody?"
If one simply asks what is best for *me* the answer is often very
simple in the short term.  If I make over $200,000 a year with
few tax shelters to be deleted by Reagan's tax reform plan then
it is obviously good for me (at least in the short term) to have
my taxes reduced by 10% and particularly to have the basic rate
reduced by 50%.
But is that *fair*? Is it right?
It is best for polluters to continue to pollute and to support
the Reagan EPA's new plan to have states enforce pollution laws
(meaning they won't be as rigidly enforced because states compete
with each other for business breaks).  Sure,
even the CEO of the company faces the effects of the pollution
but he and his company get *all* the increased profits.  The costs
are spread out over everybody.  In the long term the potential
destruction of the environment may hurt the CEO's company very
greatly.  But that is beyond this years balance sheets.

If I get welfare then I obviously would like to see welfare
benefits increased.

It is very simple to calculate in short-term practical terms
what is best for *me*.  What is *much* more difficult is
determining what is best for *everybody*.  At what point do the
increased costs of pollution control outweigh the benefits?
 
Is it really true that a 10% drop in the average taxes paid by the
wealthy will somehow lead to more jobs and consequent improved
economic returns for everybody, including the working class?
If not then is not such a tax decrease unfair?
 
Once again by framing the question and its implicit assumptions
Libertarians sidetrack truly important issues of politics.
 
                      tim sevener     whuxl!orb