Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Libertarianism, Mike vs Mike
Message-ID: <635@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Jul-85 12:23:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.635
Posted: Wed Jul 24 12:23:39 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Jul-85 03:19:00 EDT
References: <262@ihnet.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Distribution: net
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 130

In article <262@ihnet.UUCP> eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) writes:
> > 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
>
> 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.

Arggh!  Nailed by my own excess of hyperbole!  Let me be a bit more explicit
as a way of making amends.  (And thanks for the compliment....)

Libertarianism, Reaganomics, etc. that I disparage are bundles of ideas and
promises that I consider inconsistent, irrational, and representative only
of very narrow class interests.  Some of the ideas they espouse (such as
free markets) are wonderful and good.  But the rest of the bundle doesn't
fit.  Unbridled free markets would probably bring about a multitude of
problems, for example, but libertarians want to remove all the constraints.
To profess to believe or "understand" these systems without satisfactory
answers to the serious problems is evidence (in my opinion) of optimism
(at best), credulity, or cynical trickery.

You and I are mostly agreed on the specifics of what's good and bad about
Libertarianism and Reaganomics.  I'll cite portions of the remainder of your
note that we agree upon.

> Anyone who has taken econ101 should recognize the advantages of a free market.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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 disagree with the following two points (in parts).

> 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).

I specifically disagree with the idea of breaking unions.  Unions are
entirely compatible with the idea of a free market, and should be considered
compatible with libertarian ideas of non-coercion.  Indeed, the origin of a
great deal of law concerning unions was to prevent physical coercion by
employers against employees attempting to freely organize.  Naturally,
there is a fair amount wrong with unionization and laws concerning it today:
but I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater.

> 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.

Libertarianism is a bundle: I prefer to unbundle the ideas and present them
separately.  Some of the ideas and principles make good guidelines for
efficiency, and are more viable today.  But efficiency may not be the only
goal, and there may be substantial undesirable side effects.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh