Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: libertarianism VS economic reality Message-ID: <1854@inmet.UUCP> Date: Sun, 2-Dec-84 02:05:01 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.1854 Posted: Sun Dec 2 02:05:01 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 4-Dec-84 06:40:56 EST Lines: 103 Nf-ID: #R:wucs:-49500:inmet:7800202:000:5099 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Nov 30 14:59:00 1984 >***** inmet:net.politics / dciem!mmt / 9:56 am Nov 29, 1984 >> > better. It could easily fulfill my "modified golden rule" criterion >> > that says that society is best which one would choose if one didn't know >> > which member of that society one was to be. >> >> Interesting concept. I would still choose a society with minimal government >> interference, because I feel that that would give me the best chance of >> improving my lot if I wound up on the bottom. I suspect you would choose >> something different - which just shows that "best society" varies from >> individual to individual under your criterion. >> >>>Libertarians keep making this point, but it seems to me that one of the >main functions of government is to increase the chance of someone at the >bottom making his/her way to the top. Indeed. Public schools may help with this, but the record is doubtful, given the gap between public ghetto schools and public suburban schools. On the other hand, the hand of the state tends to be used by the rich and powerful to maintain their position (not in some postulated libertarian society, but in OUR society). Consider a few examples: Licensure of over 100 professions (it's ILLEGAL to be a hairdresser in NY, or a social worker in Ohio unless you're licensed). Issuing medallions to taxi drivers -- in the 1920's it was possible for a poor person to buy a secondhand car and become a taxi driver. In New York, it now costs $60,000 to get the medallion required to do this. Minimum wage laws prohibit working for less than a certain amount per hour -- meaning that if you've no skills, no employment record, and no obvious talents, and if an employer therefore judges your potential economic contribution to be less than minimum wage, he will not offer you a job. Since you want the employment record so as to be able to get a better job, or a raise later, the government has screwed you. >Under "freedom" in the libertarian >sense, those who have the power are free to keep it, This is sort of silly. A conversion to a libertarian system would strip the president and congress of 95% of their power. It would remove enormous revenues from the Mafia (suddenly they must compete for those drug and prostitution markets). It would greatly weaken the bargaining position of those highly-paid automobile executives because the Japanese would suddenly be breathing down their necks. Beyond its short-term impact on these, most obviously state-supported, fortunes, it would begin a time of opportunity in this country unequalled since the 1920's (without the danger that the FED would zig, instead of zag, resulting in another Great Depression). This means that the poor suddenly have a chance -- suddenly over 100 professions, including taxi driving are open to them. Suddenly thousands or millions of jobs -- entry level jobs -- are economically feasible again, and the poor in skill can get trained because it is profitable to train them. >AND to ensure that >those who don't [have the power] can't get it without violence. If not economic power, what sort of power do you mean? If "political" power, then I agree -- NOBODY would have much political power in a libertarian society -- at least, not of the sort we're accustomed to seeing in (say) Bert Lance, or (my recollection of the spelling is poor) Bebe Rebozo (Nixon's well-off advisor). If you mean "economic" power, you're way off base. I invite you to tell us just how the rich would keep their power. Please avoid the "lump of labor" fallacy that led Marx to a similar conclusion. Remember, in a libertarian society, the government is defending the borders, and probably very little else (if even that). It is not controlling the local police -- it is NOT putting Sacco and Vanzetti in the electric chair. If you think it worse that some private agency might do this, fine, but remember: the GOVERNMENT did it that time. Hmmm.... I see here that Sacco and Vanzetti were both Anarchists.... >Libertarianism implies >liberty for few, not for all; good government implies less liberty for >the powerful, more for most of us. ... and direct intervention by God implies happiness for all! "Good" government, of the sort you hope for, seems impossible. Do you think we have it now? Why not? Does the state need even more power to have it? No thanks. I find WEAK government almost as likely to result in happiness, and infinitely more likely of accomplishment. So long as you insist on giving power to a few, a few will have power. This is the core of the problem of "Good" government. I can see why you think that a libertarian society would be like the capitalistic society the US had in the '20s, but there are a few important differences: the lack of a "fed" is one of them, the lack of a small body of people controlling the police is another. (It's harder to use bully-boys against union demonstrators if the demonstrators can hire police you don't control, and who, if you corrupt, can be fired in favor of yet another police force).