Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Libertarians in Space Message-ID: <1620@dciem.UUCP> Date: Sat, 6-Jul-85 13:22:42 EDT Article-I.D.: dciem.1620 Posted: Sat Jul 6 13:22:42 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 6-Jul-85 18:06:11 EDT References: <446@qantel.UUCP> <454@qantel.UUCP> <293@kontron.UUCP> <377@spar.UUCP>Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada Lines: 43 Summary: >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 can't have it both ways. Lots of posters have argued that there never has been such a thing as a free market, so how can history say anything about whether people would or would not starve under them? But there have been millions of people starve under non-socialist regimes. This goes for both industrialized and non-industrialized countries. On balance (setting aside deliberate genocide, like Stalin's Ukraine and Pol Pot's Kampuchea), I would guess that there is less chance of starving in a Communist country than in an equivalently endowed free- enterprise one, and far less chance still in a Socialist one. Some real statistics might be more useful than appeals to mental models of idealized history, whether they be mine or anyone else's. >The non-competitive environment of a socialist system creates tremendous >opportunities for fraud and corruption, since a state-owned enterprise >is in no danger of going bankrupt. Socialists have long assumed that >under the influence of socialism, man will become less corrupt. The Why is the "enterprise" necessarily the appropriate unit for discussion? The unit of discussion of competition is whatever suits the structure in which competition is going on. The "enterprise" is suitable only where relatively independent enterprises exist. Individuals may be even more competitive in a Socialist system than in a free-market system. They must compete *within* an organization, with few modes of possible difference from their competition. In a free-enterprise economy, an individual can prosper because the company prospers, without necessarily damaging any *identifiable* other person. In a large organization, individuals can prosper only at the expense of their colleagues, and only by finding ways in which they can outperform their colleagues. Not everyone can be the best at a particular job, and those that are not best are tempted to win by unethical means. It isn't a phenomenon restricted to socialism, but a function of large organizations that resist change. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt