Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!husc6!seismo!ll-xn!adelie!mirror!gabriel!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc Subject: Re: Libertarianism & selfishness Message-ID: <7802374@inmet> Date: Thu, 11-Sep-86 23:39:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.7802374 Posted: Thu Sep 11 23:39:00 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 15-Sep-86 05:42:39 EDT References: <1103@princeton.UUCP> Lines: 220 Nf-ID: #R:princeton.UUCP:-110300:inmet:7802374:000:10909 Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!nrh Sep 11 23:39:00 1986 >/* Written 1:23 am Sep 2, 1986 by mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP in inmet:net.politics */ >>>It seems to me inevitable that poor uneducated people currently >>>on welfare or unemployment would see a severe drop in their >>>standard of living in a libertarian society. > >>Oh? What about the people who could find work as taxi drivers but >>cannot due to licensure? Or as barbers? Or how about the folks whose >>net economic worth is less than minimum wage (and who therefore it is >>artificially unprofitable to hire)? What about people who could make >>money running gambling houses (at first, just a place for one poker >>game, but later...)? > >In DC, on the contrary, we are cursed with an overabundance of taxi drivers, >a great many of whom are immigrants. THe limits isn't set by licensing; >it's set by the overload of cabs we have already. Even when the stupid zone >system is taken into account, the economics of the situation produces >terrible taxi service. Oh woe! Burdened by this abundance, you must struggle along somehow! It seems to me that to solve your problem, any of several measures would suffice: Make it very, very expensive to get a taxi license ($100,000 in New York these days) Require college diplomas, or perhaps advanced degrees, before allowing taxi drivers (Why fool around?) Require taxi drivers to be rich! Poor Wingate -- a real shame he must mix with those "immigrants", eh? > >People who are making less than minimum wage don't have enough to servive >around here without subsidized housing and food stamps. And so, lacking those, they would move somewhere else, so prices would go up in Washington, so people who insist on living there would bear the true costs of living there, and people in (say) Cleveland, Ohio, would not have to subsidize them. Is this so horribly unfair? >Lowering the >minimum wage may indeed produce more jobs AND much lower prices, but it's >also possible that it may produce a severe contraction in the economy when >the formerly excess wages get plowed into profits-- or even expansion. >Unless there's a commensurate drop in prices, there will much less money for >durables as people plow more of their income into simply subsisting. >Playing these economic games is very tricky, because it's never clear >whether the psychology of the situation is going to cooperate with theory. Sorry - but you have disqualified yourself from playing such games: >/* Written 12:55 am Sep 3, 1986 by mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP in inmet:net.politics */ >Libertarian government would allow the same sorts of >abuses, because it views rents as purely economic things, relying upon >economics to eradicate them. I have little or no faith in economic theory, >so I do not expect the market to suppress the oppression. Perhaps you feel that this statement frees you from having to support assertions about economic likelihood, but it does not. By the way, it seems to me that less money for durables would be matched by a lowering of the cost of making those durables. >>As for the point that one should either be willing >>to contribute as much to charity as one contributes to welfare or >>one is proposing to make the poor die ("people currently *dependent* >>on the government" would die if nothing replaced the government, right?) >>it dismisses, without saying so explicitly, any possibility that >>the government is not good at charity, and that other things >>(such as opportunity) would not remain the same in a libertarian society >>as they are now. > >Really, now, we are sopposed to be more intelligent than this. THe >government is seemingly not very good at charity. But it is very good at >collecting the money. Why is it so unreasonable, then, to parcel out the >distribution function to a private concern? Do not confuse ends with means; >in this case, once it is agreed that moral intent of charity is good as an >end, the present question becomes not whether to do away with welfare, but >rather what can be done to make it function more effectively. Yes, let's avoid confusion by all means: you may begin by avoiding the equation of "charity" with "forced charity". Your statment amounts to "once charity is agreed upon, it is moral to force people to pay". The ends justify the means, eh, Wingate? >Libertarian >and Objectivist arguments don't even attempt to explore this possibility. You haven't been paying attention: ... But they claim that the market is "undemocratic" because the number of "votes" -- that is, the number of dollars available to be spent -- varies widely from person to person. Therefore, they argue that the government should intervene in the market to redistribute wealth and income. This argument correctly regards the free market as having its own internal logic, producing results, such as an unequal distribution of income independent of the desires of its supporters. It incorrectly treats the political process as if it had no corresponding internal logic of its own. The argument simply assumes that political institutions can be set up to produce any desired outcome. ... One cannot simply say "Let government help the poor." "Reform the income tax so that rich people really pay." Things are as they are for reasons. It would make as much sense for the defender of the free market to argue that when he sets up *his* free market it will produce equal wages for everyone. "The Machinery of Freedom" David Friedman Chapt 4 -- Robin Hood Sells Out. Since I've cited this book quite often, I think you (once again) owe libertarians an apology. The notion that government COULD be used to redistribute wealth has been considered -- but it has the flaw that the wealth will flow according to political, not humane, considerations. >>In fact, governments are about 1/2 as efficient as private enterprise in >>most things (cf, Friedman, David, "The Machinery of Freedom") and someone >>posted on the net some time ago statistics indicating the government >>is MONUMENTALLY bad at charity. (The claim was that to give >>one dollar to a person via one's church typically cost $1.03, to give >>it via United Way cost $1.15, and to give it via the federal government >>cost $5.00). > >I haven't read these articles, but I suspect a bit of creative accounting by >the authors. In any case, one could take their results to indicate that the >obvious solution is to have the government simply give the money it collects >directly to the charities using some cheap distributive function. That's nice. I'm sure that's what the government would say it is doing now, with a few exceptions that our elected representatives mandate, of course! Think not? Try it -- call a government agency and ASK why things aren't done privately. >It simply >isn't a valid argument against anything except the current set-up in HHS. As Friedman says, things are as they are for a reason. To put your faith in government, but ignore the governmental dynamic, is the height of danger. >THere's nothing, as far as I know, that wouldn't prevent the current HHS >from being taken apart and being reassembled in some radically different and >hopefully much more efficient way-- after all, it isn't as though we've made >attempt at all to figure out what the best way to do this is. In which case, all you have to do is prove me wrong -- and you can do this by causing the HHS to be re-assembled in some radically different and hopefully much more efficient way. (What? You can't do it? But you just said "nothing [...] prevents...") Perhaps, instead of "nothing, as far as I know", you should have said "nothing I'm willing to think about". >>"Tish-tosh", you would say, "If charities were handling it now, then >>clearly votes would be forthcoming!". Just so: since votes are >>presently forthcoming, so also would charity be forthcoming. The >>impulse to charity takes the easiest road. In *our* society, the >>easiest road is to vote other people's money for the purpose. In a >>free society, denied this option, you shame, cajole, persuade, and >>appeal to the higher instincts of, other free people. > >If people could be relied upon to act out their moral sentiments, then a >fully free system might work. But they cannot be relied upon; they are >quite willing to shirk the obligations which they make. Oh? That naturally includes paying taxes, right? It also includes voting to steal money from the middle class using the state as the thief (thus shirking the (to me, important) obligation to leave their fellows in peace), right? >Charity, as it >exists now, is dependent upon various coercions and pressures. We have >taxes; we have payroll deductions for the United Way. We have pledges at >church with various forms of social pressure to back it up. We buy it from >the rich in exchange for lauding their supposed generosity, and in return >they hold it for ransom, and try to embarrass them if they renege. All of >these entail some mechanism for trying to coerce people into honoring their >commitments; taxes happen to be a particularly effective technique. And except for taxes, all would exist in a free society. >>> What about those unemployed because there just aren't enough jobs >>> (that they are qualified for)? > >>Then they learn new jobs -- starting, if necessary, at the bottom. >>Sheesh! Shall we repeal the law of Adam ("by the sweat of thy brow...") >>along with the others? > >And when no such jobs appear? Sorry -- you have no faith in economic theory, so you'll just have to look at the incredible unemployment in Hong Kong and Singapore to prove me wrong, right? >The problem is that this politics depends >upon the assurance that the economy will stabilize itself into "full" >employment if left alone (full in this case meaning that the only unemployed >would be those changing jobs and those who "deserved" it). THere simply is >no economic assurance of this, and historically we have often had periods >where the economy had settled into a state of significant high unemployment. Right -- Smoot-Hawley was a good one! The Great Depression (following a massive governmental in the money supply) is another. Both delightful products of state meddling. Since you've no faith in economic theory, there's no reason for me to try to convince *you* that a free society means very low unemployment (frictional only, as Daniel Mck. pointed out). You'll just have to take my word for it... For everyone else, try hiring someone long-term. Just ask what it takes, and what costs are government-mandated. Then tell us how easy it is for a small firm to hire someone. This doesn't mean that a free society means full employment, but it's an easily done test to show that our current morass means that lots of people will be unwilling to hire anybody, even though they'd like to.