Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Hunger and the Free Market: re to Cramer
Message-ID: <677@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 09:07:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: whuxl.677
Posted: Fri Jul  5 09:07:28 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Jul-85 10:07:11 EDT
References: <446@qantel.UUCP> <454@qantel.UUCP> <293@kontron.UUCP> <377@spar.UUCP> <322@kontron.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 40

> From Clayton Cramer: 
> Study libertarianism as well.  The assumption is that people will work for
> a living.  The example of history demonstrates that while free markets
> don't guarantee that everyone will be well off, few people have starved
> to death in free markets.

You have got to be *kidding* Mr. Cramer!  Go to Third World countries
throughout the world and see how many poor people are *starving* while
a landed aristocracy controls the vast majority of the land.
Right now in Brazil there is a big controversy because the newly elected
democratic government has decided to institute a land reform program
because there are *thousands* of *starving* (yes, starving Mr. Cramer)
peasants who want desperately to work but have no land to till and no
other job to do.  The *starving* peasants have no land because 45% of
it (according to a Brazilian govt spokesperson) is owned by 1% of the
population.  And they will not allow peasants to till this land although
the owners do not use it whatsoever.  The Brazilian government has
decided to redistribute such unused land to the peasants in return for
compensation to its present owners.
 
I had meant to present this case previously for those Libertarians who
support the "ownership by use" approach.  It would seem to me that
this is an excellent example of unjust *and* unproductive ownership of
wealth.
  Who would support such a land reform program?

The basic point of this example is simply to point out that *there is
no guarantee* that people will *not* starve in a free market.  In order
for a "free market" to prevent starvation then there must some reasonable
distribution of wealth in that free market.  Otherwise many people have
no access to any means with which to participate in the market (namely
the means of production)
 
In our own country such a situation was alleviated by the farsighted
"Homestead Act" which provided 160 acres *if* it were farmed for 5 years.
But even with our own large middle-class there were thousands of people
in soup lines in our own country during the Great Depression.
How many *starved* is difficult to tell.  But you can be sure many did.
 
     tim sevener whuxl!orb