Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!maynard.UUCP!campbell From: campbell@maynard.UUCP.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.politics Subject: Re: Who pays? Message-ID: <12231590544.47.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Sun, 17-Aug-86 15:33:36 EDT Article-I.D.: RED.12231590544.47.MCGREW Posted: Sun Aug 17 15:33:36 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 17-Aug-86 22:48:51 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: campbell%maynard.uucp@harvisr.harvard.edu Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 126 Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@mc.lcs.mit.edu writes: > From: campbell%maynard.UUCP@harvisr.HARVARD.EDU > > Universal, inexpensive communications yield substantial benefits > both economically, and politically. > > Those who receive the benefits should be the ones to pay for them. It is often the case that everyone, or nearly everyone, benefits, and that it is impossible to quantify the individual benefit received by any one person. The communications (telephone, telegraph, post) and transportation (roads, trains, airline industry) infrastructure are the best-known and most illustrative examples of this. > the single biggest reason for the wealth of the U.S. is not our > economic system, but our agricultural and mineral wealth, tapped > by rural pioneers. > > Another fine myth. > Tell that to Mexico. Or does the agricultural and mineral wealth >of the continent stop abruptly at the Mexican border? I failed to place enough emphasis on the agricultural part of our wealth, which is NOT shared by Mexico (they have nothing like the corn belt), and which is probably more important to us than our mineral wealth. Note also that Mexico's climate makes it extremely difficult (hence more costly and less efficient) to labor outdoors. On mechanized farms that doesn't matter a lot, but farms haven't been mechanized for very long. > Is Japan's recent success due to its adoption of free enterprise? >Or is agricultural and mineral wealth responsible there too? Strange >how no communist countries seem to have any. Japan's economy is at least as regulated as ours. They also have the substantial and peculiar advantage of having been forced by a conqueror to have only a token military establishment, while ours threatens to devour our entire GNP. > ... when telephones first started, there WAS competition, and it > DID NOT WORK. Businesses often had to have three, four, or five > phones on each desk, because the private phone companies didn't > interconnect. > > You think this might have a little bit to do with the low level of >19th century electronic technology? So what? Does that make my political argument invalid? > Recall also that with the technology of the 19th century it was > impractical to allow more than one phone company to place wires > on telephone poles in most areas. > > I won't argue the point. But do you think we would be restricted >to such technology today? Gotcha! I was NOT trying to argue that a particular industry (telephone) should necessarily continue to be a regulated monopoly. I was arguing, and I think you've conceded my point, that there can be perfectly sound reasons for certain industries to be composed of regulated monopolies. Electric power utilities are an example that is still valid today. > Telephones did not become successful, and never would have, until > a regulated monopoly was established with the charter of > providing universal service. > > Various countries have telephone systems with various degrees of >regulation. Without exception, the less regulation, the more >succesful the phone service. Who can say how much more successful >ours would have been had it been as unregulated as, say, the computer >industry? I don't think you can substantiate this statement. Until the early 1970s, Ma Bell was just as regulated as any European PTT. The only difference was in ownership, not regulation. Yes, until the early 1970s the U.S. had the best phone system in the world. But it is not at all clear why this was. I think a strong case could be made for the argument that this was due simply to the sheer size of the Bell System -- it could afford to fund enormously more research and development than could all the European PTTs combined -- and to the comparative wealth of the customer base (the U.S. public) compared to other countries. > Now, many objectivists and libertarians like to moan and groan > about how society has no right to "pick my pocket", or "force me > to do something". > > See, here you are doing it. What you are talking about is called >'government'. Why not use the word? It isn't all THAT loathsome. Government is an integral part of society. Either word would have been valid in my sentence. > ... if you expect to be able to participate in the advantages > that society provides -- culture, economic activity, safety, > medicine-- > > Presto! Now society has a new meaning. It doesn't mean government >in this paragraph. Government supplies none of those except possibly >safety. You can have so much fun when you change the meaning of >words in the middle of an argument. Baloney. Government provides or insures most of your physical safety (police and defense). Government provides economic activity, or at least the tools and framework within which economic activity occur. Government creates money (no flames on this please! I'm making a point about the definitions of society and government, not the gold standard...). Government funds an enormous amount of medical and scientific research. Government obviously doesn't provide *all* of the benefits of society, but it does provide a substantial fraction of them. Most importantly, government provides most of the rules of the game. > No, I have to voluntarily trade what I can produce for these >things. What does government have to do with that? How do you voluntarily trade what you can produce for police protection? Or defense? Or environmental protection? -- Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. ARPA: campbell%maynard.uucp@harvard.ARPA 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA UUCP: {alliant,wjh12}!maynard!campbell (617) 367-6846 -------