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: The Myth of Robinson Crusoe
Message-ID: <663@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Jun-85 11:19:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: whuxl.663
Posted: Mon Jun 24 11:19:40 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Jun-85 07:57:38 EDT
References: <298@spar.UUCP> <2380037@acf4.UUCP> <657@whuxl.UUCP> <2325@topaz.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 46

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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.  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.
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.
 
The myth of Robinson Crusoe, of freedom to produce solely for oneself
and one's own use is just that, a myth.  What Libertarians are really
talking about is unrestrained claims on *others* social production.
 
                                tim sevener whuxl!orb