Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!decvax!cca!mirror!misc!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc Subject: Re: Libertarianism & selfishness Message-ID: <117200154@inmet> Date: Wed, 24-Sep-86 03:39:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.117200154 Posted: Wed Sep 24 03:39:00 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 07:13:55 EDT References: <20850@styx.UUCP> Lines: 373 Nf-ID: #R:styx.UUCP:-2085000:inmet:117200154:000:19350 Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!nrh Sep 24 03:39:00 1986 >/* Written 2:18 am Sep 14, 1986 by mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */ > >>>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? > >Well, I don't take taxis in DC; all the places I want to go to are well-served >by the Metro, which doesn't get lost or attempt to gouge me for a fare or >insult me when I complain about bad service. None of this is of interest, >however; the point is that the economic forces don't serve to give customers >what they want. Neither does anything else! What people want is completely free travel in unbridled luxury and taking zero time. Sorry -- the best any society will give you is a choice of reasonable compromises. If you want drivers who will gouge you, complain about service, or insult you, you may find those all in NY. By the way, I'll bet I could find a limo service in DC -- would that be "what you want"? Failing that, I'll bet you could find some redneck company that doesn't rent taxis to immigrants, and you could deal only with them. But that would be ugly, don't you think? Far better to make it ILLEGAL for the immigrants to drive cabs YOU might get into. Oh, cost is an issue? Well, consider the fare on the metro, INCLUDING the hidden fare you pay in the form of taxes. If you ride the metro often, you may feel you're getting your money's worth (although such systems are VERY expensive to build) but what about the folks who've had to subsidize it willy-nilly? Or don't they count? Oh yes, what about the folks who wish to go to places the metro doesn't go to? >And whatever cracks you may want to make about immigrants, the fact is that >disproportionately, new immigrants drive taxis, and disproportionately, they >generate more complaints. Maybe I might consider using the taxis if there >were some assurance I would get decent service. I made no cracks about immigrants -- merely about your (apparent) attitude towards them. When I've visited DC, I've had no particular problems but it's not exactly my favorite town, and I don't like to stay there. What makes you say there's a "glut" of taxis, anyhow? Have you seen New York? If you want "decent" service, you should be willing to pay for it -- look harder, call one of the upscale cab companies or limo outfits, but don't whine about being unable to get "decent" service. >>>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? > >In case you haven't noticed, moving is not free. People who misjudge and >move to places where they cannot get employment are often stuck there. No, moving is not free. But lots of folks have moved around to get better welfare benefits (for example). While moving may not be free, it is not all that expensive, either (especially if you're poor). Those immigrant taxi drivers seldom have to load up a lot of delicate furniture.... By the way -- TAXES aren't free either -- you'll notice you haven't answered my question: why should the people in Cleveland have to pay for the indigent in Washington? Would you be for a plan to pay the Washington poor to move to another city? Why not? (I would be against such a plan for several reasons, but why should YOU oppose it?) >>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? > >It depends on the ends and the means. So once we agree that charity is a good thing, you feel fine forcing people to pay it (even if they weren't specifically party to the agreement)? Or not? >> ... 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. > >Oh, I agree with this. One can therefore back off and ask the question of >how to get the political system to do what is desirable, though, so this >isn't really an insurmountable problem. So *you* say -- there was an article in the WSJ a couple of months back arguing that in this century, internal repression was a much bigger killer than war (of course, both are State activities). This doesn't exactly make me think that only a few little details need be tweaked on government to make it a safe thing. I think you still owe us an apology. You claimed that: >>>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. Libertarian >>>and Objectivist arguments don't even attempt to explore this possibility. And I said >> 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. > >>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. > >The argument begs the >question of why the political system cannot be manipulated, No -- this argument points out that it's absurd to think that trusting politics will result in justice because they are two different concepts. Exactly HOW politics differs from justice should be clear to anyone who's ever been in a political campaign that lost, saw Nixon & Patty Hearst go free, or the Vietnam war extended. These things all strike me as quite obvious examples where what was politically expedient was done, rather than what is just, because our government is controlled by politics, not by justice. If the political system COULD be manipulated (even with a Titanic effort) into a just system, it would be silly to think that government could be our biggest killer, that Nixon should go free, or that we should have been half-in-and-half-out of the Vietnam war, or that 66,000,000 people could be killed in the years 1917-1959 in the Soviet Union by their government. I have my theories as to why the political system can't be manipulated in the way you seem to think would be so easy, but they may be controversial. I hope that the examples above, where (by any standard) such manipulation FAILED HORRIBLY, indicate that the proponents of such manipulation have NOT proved their case. Given the information in the WSJ article (quoted elsewhere on the net) such folks, with their well-meaning intent to perform surgery are our biggest danger: they have rusty knives and don't know it. Of course, the thing to realize is that the State is manipulated constantly, but not by the righteous, or the just, but rather those who are most adept at manipulating the state. To argue that the virtuous can tweak the state into submitting to virtue is to ignore the expertise shown by those who already manipulate it. It is as if you were to argue that the virtuous would be able to lift weights better. In fact it is the strong who lift weights best, not (necessarily) the virtuous. Now consider the State. If we were to say "whoever can lift this weight can rule us", you would be aghast! "How silly!" you would cry: "there's no logical correlation between strength and fitness to lead!" Now we take you to the legend of the Sword in the Stone -- and here comes Arthur to pull it out. "Well, that's different!" cries the Mob. Is it? Or are we substituting one illogical basis for allocating resources (you get the right to allocate them if you're good at yanking swords) for another? Now let's consider another alternative: Let's leave control of resources to those who discover and use them. Sure, it lacks the easy punch of the sword sliding out of the stone, or Alexander cutting the Gordian Knot with *his* sword, but I'm sick of these folks with swords and guns claiming that they have the right to steal from me (oh! wrapped up in "taxation" and the "common good" to be sure!) because of their expertise at swinging swords and the accumulation of their reputations. And you STILL owe us the apology for saying that libertarians "didn't even attempt" to explore the means of making welfare function more effectively. >...and also ignores >the consideration that the distribution produced by politics might be better >than that produced by an uncontrolled and unmonitored marketplace Better an uncontrolled and unmonitored marketplace than uncontrolled and unmonitored governments! Where were the monitors and controls when Stalin cranked up (hint: some were praising him!). Where were the monitors and controls when Pol Pot started having REAL fun in Asia? When only a Soviet veto prevented Vietnam from being labeled an aggressor nation in the UN? Given that NEITHER an uncontrolled an unmonitored marketplace, NOR an uncontrolled and unmonitored political arena will necessarily result in good outcomes, and given only these two choices, which does one pick? The answer is easy: if the ship is under attack, don't put people in irons -- free them! Do you think that disallowing Soviet Vetoes would make the UN work right? Of course not! They would certainly veto the elimination of their veto, and then where would you be? Both the market and politics are structures in which people PURSUE THEIR OWN ENDS. It's (often) fatally naive to think otherwise, and yet here we have Wingate telling us that the process need be tweaked only a little more ("nothing prevents...") and things will fall into place (the "political system will do what is desirable"). Hogwash! I do *NOT* claim a free market solves all of our problems (although Sevener has stated that libertarians make this claim). I DO argue that world political participants have a poorer (and bloodier) record than any comparable (in time and stature) behavior by market participants. Take all the mortgage-foreclosing, gun-producing, plantation-holding bad guys on one side and you'll find their evil lightweight compared to one Mao, let alone one Stalin! So, Wingate, if it's so easy to "fix" politics, why is internal government repression such a big killer? Do you suppose we just need a committee or two more? Perhaps we should hold fewer meetings at lunch? >>>>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). > >>>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. > >Again, the fallacy that governmental structure is uncontrollable. Fallacy? So who controls it? And how is it made to do that which is desirable? Or are you arguing (oh Heavens!) that nobody bothered to put forth the effort? Or that nobody (not even a tenth of the 66,000,000) felt motivated enough? Face it -- it's uncontrollable if it's flexible enough to be useful (because people will use it for their purposes, not yours), and certainly uncontrollable if it is frozen in concrete (because the FREEZERS will have their own goals, not yours, in mind). >>>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". > >Ah, I didn't say that *I* could do it, or even that *I* knew how it should >be arranged. As a manager and director of people, I am decidedly no better >than third-rate. No -- you said that "nothing prevents". If you argue that YOU couldn't do it because you don't know how, then your IGNORANCE prevents such restructuring. If you argue that somebody knows how, but won't, then his stubbornness prevents it. Get the picture? To say that NOTHING prevents it is to imply that it could be easily done, but there isn't the slightest indication that this is so, and the fact that *I* can't change the government in important ways is enough to prove to me that *SOMETHING* prevents me from doing it. >There are a number of reasons why we have what we have. They could be >changed by electing different officials and making sure that those who >didn't see to it that bureaucracies were restrained were canned forthwith. Question-begging! What prevents the ones we've GOT from doing this? What prevents the new ones from the same hazards? Answer: nothing and nothing! The political forces are as potent, perhaps MORE potent than market forces, and, guess what: Unlike free market forces they can take your wealth for a reward for behavior that displeases you! >If you are willing to argue that this is impractical, are you will to admit >that a libertarian government is impractical, for precisely the same reasons? Heavens no! To the extent that it is impractical to rely upon politicians to make good judgements, it is MORE practical to depend on them less and less. In other words to the extent you distrust political forces you should weaken their agents. This is as practical as killing (or, if you can, curing) a rabid dog before it bites you. If you can't kill or cure it (as seems the case with governments) you should make sure it can't reach you, or is unlikely to reach you. Oh sure, it *might* turn out to be trying to save your life, but the 66,000,000 flecks of foam on the jaws is persuasive to me that it isn't. The justification for depending on politics has always been that it would be better than NOT depending on politics, but it's not clear that this is the case ... and if it isn't, the choice is between keeping our freedoms and surrendering them FOR NO GOOD CAUSE! >>>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? > >You can hardly call any Asian economy unplanned; all have high degrees of >governmental control. Really? I suggest you read up on it a little. This was the popular perception for a while, but has fallen back before the onslaught of facts. For example, I understand that MITI, far from being a directing organization in the fascist sense, mostly acts as an arena for generating consensus among its members -- a sort of standards organization applied to strategy. Naturally it has an impact -- but not in the sense of a "high degree of government control". >The Asians are at the moment more *successful*, but >in many cases (particularly in Hong Kong) this prosperity is acheived >through highly illegal practices which amount to fraud of American firms. If you mean to imply that Hong Kong *as a country* is engaged in "highly illegal practices" then all we have to do is tweak the laws so that... So why haven't we done it? No -- you can't simply choose to elect other officials, or pass new laws -- the old legislators are not demonstrably less corruptible than the new, and the new laws no more binding than the old. Not that I would advocate passing trade sanctions against Hong Kong, except, perhaps, allowing seizure of counterfeit goods -- but is *is* a case in point for any who argue that politics may simply be "done better" somehow. It's already being done as best we know how, and the results are miserable. This is not to say we can escape politics, but we can draw its fangs, drain its strength, further blur its focus. >>>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... > >Why should I take your word on it, when I could just as well take >Galbraith's word that you are wrong? Or Mc Kiernan's word for it that I'm right? You'll have to decide this for yourself, but if you've really no faith in economic theory, you'll just have to flip a coin (if you've still got one) and HOPE it comes up correctly.