Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihnet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
From: eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Libertarianism, Mike vs Mike
Message-ID: <262@ihnet.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Jul-85 10:22:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihnet.262
Posted: Mon Jul 22 10:22:14 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Jul-85 03:08:43 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 108

I always hate to see absurd statements on the net,
especially when they originate from someone who has earned
my highest respect in the past.
> Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
> There are some things I'm proud to have a "profound ignorance" of, because I'd
> suspect my intellect was disintegrating if I "understood" them.  Such as
> Reagan's voodoo economics and libertarianism.  But go ahead, Sykora, explain
> it.  I don't think you can do much more than wave your hands

Anyone who has taken econ101 should recognize the advantages of a free market.
Indeed, if you accept the axioms, the libertarian conclusions are inescapable.
You may or may not be profoundly ignorant (economically), but our
government often is, and the consequences are disastrous.
I would never be "proud" of ignorance.
Let me try to present some thoughts in an organized manner.

1.	Comparing libertarianism with Reagan's economics is unjustified,
Although his policies *are* more libertarian than Mondales.
Coincidently, they are, in many ways, preferable
(e.g. breaking unions, reducing import restrictions,
reducing subsidies, simplifying taxes, etc).
In some ways they are worse.  I shall save discussions of
Mondale economics vs Reagan foreign policy, lesser of two evils,
for a future article.  In the meantime, don't judge libertarian concepts
by a republican president.

2.	If libertarianism is inescapable, why do *some* intelligent educated
people (such as yourself) question it.  The reason is the "if".
None of the axioms are entirely true, and some are blatantly false.
One axiom which can never be true is: "individuals are moral".
Even if you began with a moral, perfectly free society,
any immoral mutant would have selective advantage in this unconstrained world,
and would have more descendants, etc.
Libertarians freely agree to legislation prohibiting murder and rape,
but fraud and unsafe products can be equally damaging to society.
Sykora's quality assurance companies that would spring up suffer from the
same temptations.  Kickbacks, bribes, and inappropriate competitive practices
may make these companies as bad as the ones they are monitoring.
I'm sure Godel would tell us we have to jump outside the system
to combat criminal business practices.
So I reluctantly accept government control agencies (EPA, FDA, etc).
With this exception noted, the immorality of the individual doesn't
threaten the validity of free markets.  Indeed, it supports them.
Laziness (the most common form of robbery) is never rewarded in a free market.
If the theory doesn't convince you, compare the productivity of existing
countries, or China now vs China earlier.

3.	Other axioms are affected by mean education level,
and the technology available to the society.
You cannot have "knowledge of the market" without telecommunications,
and you cannot "buy/provide the good/service you chose to" without
an adequate transportation network.
You cannot "know what is best for you" without some education.
Witness the thousands of drug addicts.
So I reluctantly accept some programs supporting education.
A third world country often violates so many of these axioms,
that communism or socialism may be the only viable form of economics.
As the citizens advance technologically and intellectually,
capitalism becomes viable.
Libertarianism may not be an ideal system, but it is more viable today
than it was a century ago, and it will be more viable a century from now.

4.	the axiom measuring the "state of the society"
is necessarily subjective.  Let me consider the economic state of a society.
I know, other factors affect happiness, but humor me.
If each person has assets equivalent to $a[i],
how is the society doing?
Socialists are more concerned with the variance, while libertarians
are more concerned with the mean.  Does this make one philosophy
"cruel" or "self-centered" or "intrinsicly immoral".  I don't think so.
Personally, my function is something like: average log(a[i]+1).
This increases with increasing productivity, and (holding the mean constant)
it increases with decreasing variance.  I used things like Webber's law
(humans perceive things logrithmatically), and other handwaving tricks
to justify this subjective and simplistic formula.
Others may have a formula:  minimum a[i].
Nobody should do without!!
To them, a socialist country where everybody has $15 is better than
a libertarian country, where the average person has $60,
but some people in the slums only have $5.
How can I argue against this value judgment?
If your formula has these properties,
it violates an essential axiom, and you will never like pure libertarianism.
However, it is not wise to remain "ignorant" about libertarianism.
Often (pushing the above analogy to its limits),
it costs $17 to live.
My own personal opinion is, free economies are *so* much more efficient,
that a few (well thought out) programs could give the people in the slums $10,
without severely disrupting the system.
So I reluctantly accept intelligent social programs
(that is, I will, if I ever see any).

5.	To Sykora: It is refreshing to read articles from
someone who understands economic theory.
I wish there were some econ101 requirement for senators and representatives.
However, I must remind you that many opponents have valid points.
Implying that free markets can combat fraud, criminal business practices,
or discrimination is idealistic,
and turns people away from the many valid libertarian policies.
We, as a society, cannot afford this.
Let's use the power of free markets, without expecting miracles.

-- 
	I never know what to put in these damn .signature files.
	Everybody expects me to be clever, or profound, or cute, or funny.
	I just can't take the pressure any more.  They're out to get ...
	Doctor? ... Hey, where are you going?  My session isn't over yet!!!
		Karl Dahlke    ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad