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).