Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!yale!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Re: Explorations of "social-interest Message-ID: <28200019@inmet.UUCP> Date: Thu, 27-Jun-85 12:26:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.28200019 Posted: Thu Jun 27 12:26:00 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 1-Jul-85 06:49:34 EDT References: <657@whuxl.UUCP> Lines: 97 Nf-ID: #R:whuxl:-65700:inmet:28200019:000:4510 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Jun 27 12:26:00 1985 >/**** inmet:net.politics.t / whuxl!orb / 11:19 am Jun 24, 1985 ****/ >Devout followers of Libertarianism and even orthodox neo-classical >economists are very fond of the Robinson Crusoe myth. >In fact, one of my economics textbooks made the Robinson Crusoe myth >part of its argument. The Robinson Crusoe myth is the myth that >economic activity and likewise all important social activity, (since >we all "know" that economics is *the* most important social activity) >is totally individualistic in nature. Imagine Robinson Crusoe on his >island, we are told, trying to produce the necessities and luxuries of life. >From that we can then glean a model for all of society. > >My economics professor was stunned when I pointed out the obvious which >he and his fellow economists had totally ignored: namely that in fact, >Mr. Robinson Crusoe was hardly a model of any society at all except one >doomed to failure. For he had no children. Without passing on its fruits >to its children society would soon die out. But this consideration is not >part of the "economic" sphere and hence totally unimportant. Trivial. I can see your professor being stunned by your foolishness. You may as well argue that Crusoe didn't model a society because he had no arguments with himself, that his liver didn't rebel against his bloodstream, and so forth. Which economic textbook was it, by the way? >Other Libertarians have gone on great harangues about Mr. X and his widget >maker. Mr. X is simply the relative to Robinson Crusoe on his island. That's nice. Mr. X, for example, is NOT a model of a whole society, but of a person who invests resources wisely. Straw man here, for those still counting, eh Sevener? >Libertarians and their kindred economists will go on at great lengths >about the individual's right to create as many widgets as s/he wants >in their own home. > >Nobody wishes to deny Mr. X or Robinson the right to be totally >self-sufficient if they wish. Not even Communist societies prevent >individuals from producing all the widgets they want in their own >homes. Even if true, uninteresting. What difference does it make whether this work is done in the "home" or elsewhere? Where is the limit on government intervention if all housing is owned by the government? >But this is not what Libertarians and neo-classical economists >are really talking about. What they are talking about is the >*social* claim for Mr. X, widget-maker, to be able to claim as much >of other people's production as he can possibly extract out of >Mr. X's production of widgets. Note the intriguing use of the word "claim". Mr. X makes no "claim" on anyone, except that they leave him alone, and not force him to do anything. Mr. X. OFFERS widgets at a price. The only claim involved is that the trade of widgets for other people's production must not be coerced. >Without being able to claim *other >people's production* Mr. X's production of even a million widgets >is completely useless. "Let him eat widgets"!!" said his fellows. Quite possible, which is why Mr. X is led to produce widgets that other people value more than their own production (just as Mr. X values their production more than the widgets, else no trade could occur). >This is not a case of totally individualistic production- in fact >as we all know there is no such thing for even Mr. X must rely >on the work, intellectual or otherwise, of others to even get the >parts for his widgets, for the machines to make them,etc. As has been pointed out quite clearly before, the donations of others (such as parents) to one's ability to work, or their free trade of their abilities for their salaries (book publishers, educators) requires no further payment. One may, of course, and probably will choose to contribute to "society", but that "society" has contributed to you imposes no accountability to government. >The myth of Robinson Crusoe, of freedom to produce solely for oneself >and one's own use is just that, a myth. So? Having knocked down yet another straw man, do you expect us to be impressed? Pfui. >What Libertarians are really >talking about is unrestrained claims on *others* social production. Hard to see just how this is so. After all, to join the Libertarian party, one must sign a statement opposing the initiation of force. Shame on you tim, for strewing even more straw on the path. > > tim sevener whuxl!orb >/* ---------- */ > - Nat Howard