Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gargoyle.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes From: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Re: Re: Newsflash! [JoSH on Socialis Message-ID: <218@gargoyle.UUCP> Date: Sat, 19-Oct-85 20:31:26 EDT Article-I.D.: gargoyle.218 Posted: Sat Oct 19 20:31:26 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 21-Oct-85 03:48:36 EDT References: <876@water.UUCP> <28200170@inmet.UUCP> Reply-To: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) Organization: U. of Chicago, Computer Science Dept. Lines: 107 Summary: The subject line that refused to die [L. Kolodney] >>POINT: No economic system has ever existed in a vacuum. It is >>always the result of certain power relations within a society. >> >>There has never in history been anything like your mythical free >>market. To create one, using the power of the state, would be just >>as arbitrary and coercive and creating any other system. The >>relations of power in society today have an historical basis in >>govt. interference. To withdraw the role of the govt. now would >>simply institutionalize certain arbitrary inequalities that exist >>today. > > [B. Gamble] >Let me try to understand this. If we were to create a state which >enforced property rights and voluntary contracts, and stayed out of >our lives otherwise, that this would be just as coercive as creating >any other system? The logic is lost on me. Insofar as I detect any logic in this exchange, Larry Kolodney appears to maintain that the existence of the free market we all know and love depends on an arbitrarily and unjustly coercive state in order to come into existence and to continue in existence, and Bruce Gamble objects that a minimal state would not be as coercive as other systems and would presumably be more just than the alternatives. I think the objection misses a crucial point. A minimal state "enforces property rights and voluntary contracts, and stays out of our lives otherwise." But what KIND of property rights? And who determines who owns what? Property rights, you know, are not written on a golden tablet in the heavens for all to see. They are created and revised by societies, as when slavery was abolished in the US. So you must specify which kind of property rights this minimal state will enforce, and you must further explain how it will be determined who has just title to any given unit of wealth. For instance, if J.B. Moneyswine inherited his vast fortune from his grandfather who made his fortune through lying, cheating, stealing, etc., does he get to keep his fortune? If not, who does it go to? I suspect that libertarians are talking about *capitalist* property rights. When libertarians describe their utopia as something like "an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all," I say Hurrah, that sounds like something out of the *Communist Manifesto* (it is). But then they go on to say they want capitalist property rights to hold sway in this utopia. At that point I part company with them, for I don't believe this is compatible with their goal. To many of them the possibility doesn't appear to occur that this particular form of property rights may institutionalize injustice, which I believe was the point Larry was trying to make. In particular, a working class is essential to capitalism, and the modern working classes were created through massive coercion and fraud (enclosure acts, etc.). Perhaps it will be objected that however the working class was created, it provides security for its members, and people may have a preference for security over risk-taking. Whether or not this is true, let us note that this is the classic justification of slavery, and I believe of serfdom and despotic governments as well. [Nat Howard] >>>Excuse me, but I doubt if that's true. It amounts to an acceptance of >>>the notion that only the rich get richer, and that they >>>don't sometimes get poorer. Simply not true. >... >Well, Larry, pull out the ol' dog-eared copy of "Losing Ground" by >Charles Murray, and look at page 65. You will notice a there a graph >of "Percentage of persons living under the poverty line" vs year. >The graph of "official poverty" from 1950-~1970 is pretty much >steadily downward, showing about 30% below the poverty level in 1950 >to about 13% in 1969 or so. What happens after that is for >Murray to say, but the point is that poverty has also been on a pretty >steady decline (or at least it was until fairly recently -- read the >book). > >The point of all this is that it is NOT surprising when the poor >get richer. It *IS* surprising when the poor become rich, but >not when they simply become better off. In fact, it is surprising >when they do not. So it is again untrue that it is "a surprise when >it happens, even noteworthy". So there is some upward mobility. This totally fails to address the issue of whether there is any systematic exploitation going on. I thought this was the issue Larry was raising when he wrote about the free market perpetuating injustice. Why not read something by, say, Douglass C. North and learn something about economic history, Nat, instead of singing the same old "The Only Good Government Is A Dead Government" song and only looking for evidence that fits this preconceived notion? I've already agreed that governments have done and continue to do a great deal of harm, and I've also pointed out some benefits of the state including making economic growth possible through establishing efficient property rights and providing economies of scale for a society. Your objection that these benefits require a world government is a non sequitur if I've ever seen one. >>>In China, it didn't happen this way, despite a very large degree of >>>government control over commerce. In fact, the degree of prosperity went >>>up when the Chinese government RELAXED its control, so I hand you >>>a counterexample, not a non sequitur. I wish someone would be specific about what has happened in China's economy, and what has permitted the relative economic prosperity China has experienced since the revolution (no famine, population coming under control, etc.). If I were writing on the wondrous benefits of capitalism, China is not the country I would choose for an example. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes