Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site unmvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!unmvax!cliff
From: cliff@unmvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: sundry delayed responses
Message-ID: <546@unmvax.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 16-Dec-84 19:18:20 EST
Article-I.D.: unmvax.546
Posted: Sun Dec 16 19:18:20 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Dec-84 02:40:32 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Univ. of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Lines: 437
Keywords: Libertarian

Foo!  Our new netnews feed has been so reliable I have found many articles
worth replying to.  Unfortunately, things weren't set up properly and all
articles posted from unmvax did not make it out of our local network.  So
without further ado, here is what none of you have been waiting for, my
fanatical replies to news long since posted (and possibly expired):

Subject: Re: Re: libertarianism VS economic reality
Newsgroups: net.politics
References: <2150@randvax.UUCP> <2628@ihldt.UUCP> <2173@randvax.UUCP>

> Agreed, each
> person should be allowed to think and state whatever views they please.
> And that's about as far as you can reasonably go in extracting my political
> views from the posting you quoted.

To bad the SEC doesn't see things this way.  If you publish a financial
newsletter boy oh boy all the sudden you are regulated.  What happened to
freedom of the press?

Subject: Re: Re: Income taxes,labor costs, and the Economy
Newsgroups: net.politics
References:  <383@whuxl.UUCP>

> How come unions are successful in getting wages that are supposedly higher
> than the market would bear? Do you suppose it might have anything to do
> with the monopoly power of companies which often control one-third of
> their market?

... or could it have to do with closed shop laws and all sorts of protectionist
legislation?

> Free market advocates have to begin dealing with reality: we do *not* have
> the conditions necessary to meet the efficiency assumptions of a free
> market.  Please remember that a key assumption for free-market efficiency
> is that the market is composed of many small producers none of which
> significantly affect the market.

This is not true, you are building a straw man.  The key assumption for free-
market efficiency is that should some corp. or group of corp. try to foist
unreasonably high prices on the consumer they will inspire new competition
that will keep their prices in line.  If there is just one company that is
doing a reasonable job it would be pointless to bother competing.  Of course
this does not apply to just price, peoples' disatisfaction with IBM PCs and
look alikes has created a market for Macs...

> This condition *is* met in certain sectors
> of the economy, such as agriculture where thousands of independent farmers
> make up the production side of the market.  But it is *not* met in such
> industries as automobiles, steel, oil, etc. in which a few companies
> control the domestic market.  Moreover, the portion of the economy which
> is controlled by the largest 500 corporations has been remorselessly
> increasing for the past hundred years.  It is now on the order of two thirds
> of the whole economy.

Don't kid youself.  As long as the FED can change the value of currency
IT controls the economy.  What percentage of that 2/3's is tied directly
to government funds?

> Under conditions of oligopoly prices are constrained.
> It is no surprise then, that in industries such as steel and autos that
> one company is often a price leader, deciding what level of production and
> pricing will maximize their profits.  That level is *not* the same as
> the theoretical point where supply exactly matches demand. Instead it looks
> like this:
>         |  \      / Supply
>         |   \    / 
>         |   .\  / ___ where price is set under oligopoly
> Price   |   . \/  ________________    where supply meets demand
>         |   . /\
>         |    /  \ Demand
>         |   /    \
>         |  /      \
>         ____________________
>           Quantity
>  
> By restricting production, firms with control of the market can increase 
> their prices (hence their marginal revenues), while also producing less.
> They will (theoretically) do this to the point where their marginal
> revenues are maximized.

Without the forced (they are as voluntary as taxes) import quotas on foreign
cars there would not be a way U.S. automakers to get away with this.  If
Chrysler had to face up to its poor business practices the other companies
would have had to take note.

> Farmers cannot do this themselves--so instead
> the government does it for them by paying them *not* to grow crops
> (therefore decreasing quantity, and increasing prices).

Not only does the government have the enourmous payment in kind subsidies
there are also regulations that prevent people from selling under cost.  Every
year tons of oranges are destroyed because it is illegal to sell them!

> But companies
> which control a substantial part of their market can do this.

So far the examples that you have given are all interwined with government
invention (cars by import quotas, agriculture by subsidies and U.S. government
sanctioned and enforced cartels).

> By doing this they also reduce employment, because more labor would have
> been employed at the quantity where supply meets demand.
> Before advocating a free market, please consider the assumptions necessary
> for it to achieve its vaunted efficiency.  Why are so many industries
> controlled by only a few firms? Is it economies of scale? Sheer power?
> Monopsony power of manufacturers over their suppliers?
> What will you do about monopoly power? Ignore it? Close your eyes and
> pretend it is only the "unions" who have any monopoly power?

In the Alcoa Aluminum anti-trust suit (that was found against Alcoa)
testimony to Alcoa's unfair business practices (because they were so large)
involved the statement that their size allowed them to use more efficient
techniques for production/distribution and thereby enabled Alcoa aluminum to
undercut the price that other companies wanted to charge.  QUITE THE UNFAIR
PRACTICE, BEING ABLE TO MANUFACTURE AND MARKET GOODS AT A COST BELOW THE NORM.
Beware, there are many people objecting to use of robots/automation for the
same reason; it allows companies to sell goods for a cheaper price then those
charged by companies that hire union members.  If you want to see efficiency
in action, get rid of the government barriers and you will be inundated with
it, but don't say that we can't go turn to the marketplace because we don't
have enough government regulation to protect ourselves from it.

Subject: Re: re: Free education
Newsgroups: net.politics
References: <1170@drusd.UUCP>

> >...............................................  Please tell me at what
> >point I incurred an obligation to pay for other people's children?
> >
> >Bob Stewart
> 
> You incurred the obligation the moment some doctor who probably began his or
							 ^^^^^^^^
> her education in a public school slapped you on the butt and introduced you
> to a civilized society.

So if his family doctor attended private school he would have no debt?
If that is really when obligation to pay for other people's children
('s education) begins, then how did such a practice come into being?  Obviously
the first person who asked such a question could not have been given the
answer Phil supplied.  I am not asking for a history lesson, merely pointing
out that there must be some other reason supplementing Phil's premise.

Why doesn't someone answer the hard question:  If education has to be subsidized
for the poor, why don't people who can afford it pay for the education of their
children?

Subject: Re: Re: "Free" education - comment to Bob Stewart
Newsgroups: net.politics
References: <733@oliven.UUCP>  <1247@dciem.UUCP> <2631@ihldt.UUCP> <1543@drutx.UUCP>

> Before this country funded
> education and made it mandatory that all children go to school it
> was a bastion for those who could afford it.

Let' not confuse the issue here:  US government funding of education is
a fairly recent thing (title IX and all that) and is still quite incomplete
(hooray).  Funding is usually done at a state and local level.  Compulsory
education was required long before the Feds kicked in a few $$.  Remember,
the issue that was originally brought up was how schools should be funded,
not whether attendance should be mandatory.

> M. L. King Jr. once
> said that education was neccessary so that the poor and the
> underprivileged could participate fully in american society.  

The comment has no relevance to how schools should be supported.

> Free education and an educated
> society benefits everyone.

Do the benefits come from "free" education or from an educated society.
The two are not linked.

> Most public schools teach more than just academics.  In most public
> schools there are a mix of children with various economic, social,
> racial, and religious backgrounds.  Thus children will be
> understanding and tolerant of others with different backgrounds.

Now you are arguing that integrated education is the big win.  Which is
it?  "Free" education or integrated education?  Don't claim that these
two are linked.  Think about it.

> Free education benefits all americans and helps those to help
> themselves!

You still have not shown how "free" education benefits anyone.  It is
interesting to see people use the word "free" for "compulsory".  Double-
speak awards anybody?

Subject: Re: Re: Taxes vs. Freedom
Newsgroups: net.politics
References: <2631@ihldt.UUCP> <2632@ihldt.UUCP> <4433@tektronix.UUCP>

>            ONE MIGHT ALSO SAY (fill in the blanks):
> 
> By taxing me [in large amounts, by the way] to pay for the _____________
> ________________________, the government* has adversely ________________
> ___________________________________.  Ironic, no?  Anyway, since this is
> one of the most important _____________________________, I claim that my
> ______________________ has been (substantially) _______________________.
> 
>            THEN ONE CAN SAY, SO WHAT?

Someone can also say "my entire family was killed in a fire" and have some
callous joker laugh in his face.  Are you saying "SO WHAT, I DON'T PERSONALLY
GIVE A CARE WHETHER YOU FEEL YOU HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PROPERLY RAISE A
FAMILY?" or are you saying you don't believe that is the case.  Where do
you draw the line?  How about:

"by taxing [100% by the way] to pay for manifest destiny, the government has
adversely effected our ability to continue to live where we have lived for
hundreds of years and are familiar with the territory. Ironic, no?  Anyway,
since this is one of the most important matters to our lifestyle, I claim that
my race has been (substantially) deprived life and liberty."

Gee, since it fits the template I guess it must not be of great import.  After
all if the government confiscates property for the best interest of society then
noone should complain!

I really think rather than make a template that allows anything from minor
gripes to indictments of attempted genocide.  You should have tried to
rationally explain just what about his argument you didn't like.

Subject: Re: Re: "Free" education
Newsgroups: net.politics
References: <733@oliven.UUCP>  <1247@dciem.UUCP> <2631@ihldt.UUCP> <8@ucbcad.UUCP>

> > HARD QUESTION #49: If what we're worried about is the education of the
> >   poor, then why don't we have a system where you pay for it if you can,
> >   and only get it free if you can't afford it?  This is what we
> >   currently do with court-appointed lawyers.  My guess is that everyone
> >   wants a piece of the "free" pie.
> 
> That's not far from what things are like now -- those who can afford to
> tend to send their kids to private schools, and the public schools are
> left with those who can't afford it. The result of this is that the
> people in charge find less and less motivation for making sure that
> public education is any good, and it goes downhill...
> 
> 	Wayne

What a great response!  You never answered the question, but you did imply
that somehow teaching poor people is less motivating than teaching the
well-to-do.

Subject: Prostitution in Amsterdam vs. Prostitution in CA
Newsgroups: net.politics
References: <6166@mcvax.UUCP> <270@spp2.UUCP> <127@talcott.UUCP> <6199@mcvax.UUCP> <1084@pyuxa.UUCP> <6222@mcvax.UUCP> <10@ucbcad.UUCP>

> > Yes, there *is* prostitution in Amsterdam,
> > like there is prostitution in many other places in Holland, Germany, the USA,
> > etc. etc. That's part of Western "civilization", you know. But prostitution
> > that's *tolerated* is quite something else than *legalized* prostitution,
> > which is what the discussion was about.
> 
> When there is such a huge gap between what is legal and what it
> tolerated you wonder what the judicial system spends all their time
> doing...
> 
> 	Wayne

In most places the judicial system spends all their time trying any case that
comes to court.  It is not the judicial section that decides who to arrest, it
is the executive (for countries where there are two such branches).

Most likely there is quite a bit of selective enforcement in Amsterdam.
Whenever popular victimless "crimes"  are made illegal, the constabulary
is faced with more violations than it can process.  Selective enforcement
is then used to justify the existance of the laws.  Of course this frequently
leads to harrasment of individuals or groups that are disliked by the "peace"
officers and not infrequently results in bribes either direct or indirect.
A local (Albuquerque NM) example of harrasment is the case where a taxi
driver who worked nights got on the bad side of one of the cops.  That cop and
a few of his friends met and decided to set the guy up.  They called for a taxi
and tried to set it up so they would get their target.  They asked to be taken
to a place where they could "get some action."  After the taxi driver complied
he was arrested.  It turns out that the taxi driver wasn't the one that was the
target, but he was black.  The cops in question didn't go after all taxi
drivers, just this one that they personally dislike.  It is not clear whether
they proceeded with the plan even though the dispatcher sent the wrong person
because they had put so much time into the plan or whether they mistook the
two drivers, owing to their same skin color.

For Wayne:  Take a trip down to SF and look on a few street corners downtown
for "Hollywood Press."  Take a look at all the ads within.  Do you really think
most of the advertisments are to attract people who want massages?  While you
are there, open up the yellow pages and look under "escort" and "massage."  How
blatant do the ads need to be before some hack journalists from a foreign
country come over and do an expose on the legality of prostitution in
California?

Newsgroups: net.politics
References: <710@loral.UUCP>

> Hey!, I have a great idea.  Fifty cents out of every dollar for the relief
> effort should be distributed to the farmers about ready to go bankrupt and
> the street people in all cities of this country.  Now you say well thats
> welfare.  No matter who we give relief to its still welfare.  By the way
> the farmers being proud people that they are will pay it back some day.

Right!  I'm holding my breath to see the $6,000,000,000 of Payment in Kind
subsidizes be repaid.  It is "aid" for farmers that is hurting other farmers.
It is unprofitable to attempt to compete with a company that has big brother
interfering with the market.

> Just before you give away a check to the Ethiopia relief drive find out
> if there are any charity organizations for our street people or farmers
> relief funds.  I say when every person in america is fat and healthy and
> we don't know what else to do with our money then send it over seas.
> 
> LETS QUIT SHIT'NT ON OUR OWN PEOPLE  for the sake of others!

Stop and think.  Ethiopia is facing a food shortage (i.e. they do not have
enough food in their country).  We are supplying them with food and money
to buy food.  Food is raised by farmers.  We have a surplus of food raised/
grown by farmers.  The government is not stealing food from the farmers
('cept in taxes, but that is not a special case; it's universal).  Guess
who gets the money for raising the food that is sent to Ethiopia.  Think
hard.

Subject: Re: Re: Gun control
Newsgroups: net.politics
References: <259@decwrl.UUCP>

> 	Don goes on to suggest handguns are useful to keep the 
> government in line, should government control end up in the hands
> of (his example) religious fanatics, or some other anti-democratic
> group.  First of all, I think this is very unlikely scenario.  With
> all its faults, our Constitution works.  Watergate proved it.  
> Secondly, I would think rifles (which I am not proposing be outlawed)
> would be more useful in such a situation.  If you want to protect
> our freedom, I suggest you concentrate more on the First Amendment -
> that's the one that would have to be gutted before the American
> government could be perverted into a tyranny.

Watergate proved what? That corruption at the highest elected position is
tolerated?  That some crook can get off the hook and still have large amounts
of money given to him taken directly from the taxpayers?  Here is a quote from
the Constitution of the United States; it is Article XIII (i.e. the thirteenth
amendment), Slavery Abolished:

"1.  Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime
 whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the
 United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
 2.  Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
 legislation."

How many involuntary servants' lives were lost in Vietnam?  Just what crime had
they been convicted of?  Oh, let me guess, the people that proposed this
amendment in 1865 didn't have war on their minds when it was written so the
lack of a "except in times of national emergency" clause was an oversight?
Think hard now.  There is no way to interpret the draft as anything but
involuntary servitude.  Now tell me that it is unlikely that the government
can be perverted into a tyranny (Websters: 2. oppressive and unjust government).
Sit back in your chair and tell me "Hey, *I* don't consider killing U.S.
citizens oppressive and unjust, after all, they didn't kill me and who am I
supposed to be looking out for, anyway?"

> 	About the amendment guaranteeing the "right to bear arms"; let's
> look at it in its historical context.  The Founding Fathers were actually
> a pretty cynical bunch (you'll notice they didn't let the common people
> elect their President directly), and expected that it wouldn't be long
> before their newly-created government got out of hand.  Therefore, they
> included in the Constitution the right to bear arms as part of an
> organized militia to keep the government in check.  Fortunately, the
> experiment in creative government worked far better than expected 
> (Libertarians and Communists are free to disagree).

It is interesting when people who are pro-gun-control mention the 2nd amendment
they do not quote it:  "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed."                   ^^^^^^^^^^
                              ^^^^^^^^^^
If there is enough objection to letting the people keep and bear arms, then make
another amendment, similar to the one repealing prohibition, that revokes the
people's right to keep and bear arms.

> >	In truth criminal acts will continue to go on in our world
> >	until we address the problem of criminal behavior, not
> >	something so meaningless as a neutral tool. Crime has 
> >	actually dropped in the last few years.  A new gun
> >	control act?  Of course not.  Merely a drop in the population
> >	most likely to commit criminal acts. Treat diseases, not symptoms.
> >		Robin D. Roberts
> 
> 	Robin has a point here about crime prevention.  However, 
> the "neutral tool" in question is not meaningless.  It is one which 
> significantly increases the damage done in crime.  Some crimes actually
> become impractical without guns (armed bank robbery, for instance). It's
> interesting to note that the "need" for handguns decreases as crime
> decreases (if there's no crime, there's no need for a gun).
> Something should certainly be done about the crime problem, but private
> ownership of guns is no answer.

I have heard of stores robbed with hammers.  A large individual with a large
hammer enters, says "give me your money or I will do large amounts of damage
with this hammer," takes the money and drives away.  You don't see things
like this happening in banks, because bank security guards are allowed to
have guns.  Now, if you continue to allow money that is in a bank to be
proteted by guns, but you don't allow money at home to be protected by guns
you are unfairly influencing where someone should keep his money.  Remember,
it would be very hard to rob a bank without a car.  I don't see anyone
objecting to cars, even though more people are killed in them than at the
other end of guns!  It is less than interesting to note that as crime decreases
then the "need" for handguns decreases, since there is no correlation between
crime decreasing and handgun control.  Some argue that violent crimes go down,
but even that argument is tenuous.

> 	Oh, there is one use for a handgun besides self-defense,
> and that's for sport (target-shooting).  This does not require private
> ownership of the guns; they can be owned by and stored at the
> facility at which they're used (which, needless to say, should
> be reasonably secure).  There's no reason for a sportsman to have
> a gun at home.

So with some arm waving and a quick "Watergate proved that," the specter
of government going awry has been exorcized.  Nobody will point to
figures concerning how abuse of executive/legislative/judicial powers
relates to the disarming of all U.S. citizens, because it has never happened
before.  Since the government never gives back rights that it takes, it is
a test that is just too risky to take.  There are better ways to fight
handgun deaths.  The first of which is LEGALIZATION OF ALL VICTIMLESS CRIMES.
This will allow two things of great import to happen.  The police can go
back to protecting the people from handgun killers, etc. and realize quite
a bit more respect then they currently get.  The price of many currently
illegal substances will plummet, taking the money maker out of organized
crimes and removing the incentive a junky has to steal 3 T.V.'s a day for
his habit.  In addition to all the reform that will be necessary to remove
the victimless crime legislation, there should be a little work done on
the judicial process.  People curious about some of my views on that will
have no problem prompting me into a little ranting and raving here and there.

	--Cliff [Matthews]
	{purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff
	{csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff
	4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque  NM  87108 - (505) 265-9143