Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!yale!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Re: Re: Newsflash! [JoSH on Socialis Message-ID: <28200171@inmet.UUCP> Date: Wed, 16-Oct-85 01:03:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.28200171 Posted: Wed Oct 16 01:03:00 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 19-Oct-85 07:40:22 EDT References: <876@water.UUCP> Lines: 80 Nf-ID: #R:water:-87600:inmet:28200171:000:4382 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Oct 16 01:03:00 1985 >/* Written 7:09 pm Oct 10, 1985 by mmt@dciem in inmet:net.politics.t */ > >>>That is false. Wealth is created by the re-organization of things >>>(the reduction of entropy, if you like). Government most definitely >>>can aid in such organization. Whether it is the most efficient way >>>of doing so is a different story, but to regard government as only >>>a transfer medium for existing wealth is like seeing a painting as >>>a transfer medium for oil and pigment. >>> >> >>Whoa! Let's have some historical examples please, of a government that >>CREATED wealth. Granted that governments seldom actually started out >>to destroy wealth, I've never heard of one that actually engaged in >>NET creation of wealth (such a government would not need to tax people, >>as it would turn a profit). Localized increase of wealth is no trick at >>all for a government, but to call this "creation of wealth" >>amounts to assuming that the money in the tax-collector's coffers >>just "appears from nowhere". > >Whoa, indeed! You totally misunderstand the idea. I never said that >Governments CREATE wealth, just that the orgaization they provide assists >in the creation of wealth. Your question would be better phrased (and >just as unanswerable) if you said: Show examples of two societies >equivalent in natural resources, one of which was an anarchy and the >other having a government, in which the one with the government was >wealthier. In the absence of comparable societies, and in the absence >of any anarchies lasting more than a few weeks, no such tests can be >made. There were semi-anarchic societies that lasted hundreds of years. To name one, old Ireland, which the British had to conquer piecemeal because there was no central authority capable of surrendering. The largest social unit of import appears to have been about 80 people. In the absence of the side-by-side test (which, of course, is not possible to do with adequate control) one must deal with more difficult issues. Rather than try out both ways of using money (take it away and spend it, or let the owners spend it as they please), it seems worthwhile to ask people who wish to employ force to justify this use of force. Such uses have traditionally been justified on the grounds of "the common good". As one of the people who loses money to such schemes, it seems worthwhile to try and expose their errors, if any. One large error is to see what is obvious and overlook what is hidden. What is obvious is what the government does with that money. What is hidden is what people would have done with it. It's worthwhile to try to find out if there was really a net win here when the government spent our money. Is this so impossible to do? If so, it follows that it's ALSO impossible to show how large the win was. If it IS impossible to show this, then one should look with GREAT suspicion at those who propose to use force to extract money for a scheme that they THINK might make money, and demand a little more than enumeration of the obvious spending and neglect of forgone opportunities for the folks who would have had that money. >It seems obvious to me that the institutionalized means of >communication and organization provided by (yes!) the bureaucracy >assist greatly in developing both social and material organization. >In fact, a few months ago, libertarians were arguing strenuously that >such was the case (remember "no monoplies without governments to help?). Ho-hum. It isn't established that a greater degree of organization is better, or that larger organizations are better, for the society in which they exist. Hence the argument that government makes them possible or more likely is hardly a saving grace for government. >So, I argue not that Governments create wealth, but that their presence >assists in the creation of wealth, which is measured not in money >but in organization (i.e. reduction of entropy). To measure wealth >in money is to measure it not at all. To measure wealth in terms of degree of organization, as if that were a linear scale (or as if you were even capable of plotting points corresponding to actual governments on such a scale) is also to measure it at all. And now we're to the meat of the matter. Surely if we are to measure wealth we must do it in terms other than the number or size of bureaucracies in our society?