Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!mcgeer From: mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Re: Health Care, Wonderful Market fo Message-ID: <10417@ucbvax.ARPA> Date: Wed, 18-Sep-85 00:03:46 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.10417 Posted: Wed Sep 18 00:03:46 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 19-Sep-85 05:17:00 EDT References: <1764@psuvax1.UUCP> <10300@ucbvax.ARPA> <1774@psuvax1.UUCP> <10355@ucbvax.ARPA> <1231@ihlpg.UUCP> Reply-To: mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 87 In article <1231@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >> >[Piotr Berman] >> >The most general law is that the market has a tendency >> >toward equilibrium: the demand stimulates the prices up, the supply >> >stimulates the prices down. Increase of prices may stimulate the >> >production, decrease may stimulate removing marginal producers from >> >the market. The real problem is that the equilibrium does not imply >> >superior fulfillment of social needs. >------- >> [Rick McGeer] >> This is a common statement of leftwingers, and it is completely meaningless. >> What are "social needs"? Who sets them? Why are the demands met by the market >> not an adequate reflection of the generalized demands of society, if such >> things in fact exist? And how do you propose to measure how well or badly >> any system of organizing society meets "social needs"? When, or if, you >> can answer these questions, then we'll have something to talk about. Until >> then, you're just flaming. >-------- >Unbelievabe. First, there is the unwarranted ad-hominem characterization >of Piotr Berman as a leftwinger, because he thinks there are social needs. >By that standard, even Ronald Reagan is a left-winger. C'mon. I hardly think Piotr is terribly upset at being called a leftwinger, for two reasons: (1) I didn't (saying that man makes "a common statement [made by] leftwingers" is *not* the same as saying that he is a leftwinger, though I guess the implication is clear, if not directly intended; and (2) since Piotr has been making the case for social welfarism for about the last eight months, the characterization is hardly unfair. But so what? The line merely indicated that I'd heard this one before, and didn't believe it then and don't believe it now. It's an opinion most often heard from lefties: "social needs" rarely comes trippingly to the Tory's tongue. > Now, about "social needs". How about starting with adequate food, >clothing and shelter for all? I'll agree that each person needs these things: I won't agree that that makes them "social needs". Can anyone define this beast for me, as opposed to giving me examples? >Almost every non-libertarian would agree with >these. Evidence? >Conservatives might stop there, liberals might add a few more, while >social democrats would add a lot more. Who decides? Why, the electorate, >through its elected representatives, of course. Well, the Southern electorate through the first half of the 19th century decided that slaves were a social need. Then they decided that the social needs of blacks were a hell of a lot less than the social needs of whites. The Germans decided in the thirties that glomming onto most of Europe was a social need, but that Jews definitely weren't. The history of democracies makes me less than sanguine about their future: I'm more than a little inclined to agree with the New York State Judge who said that "No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session". Few candidates in this nation call for sacrifice for the common good. Most promise their constituents plunder at the expense of their non-constituents. >Since social needs >are not defined in Libertarian economics, they clearly don't exist. First, there is only economics, not Libertarian economics, or Marxist economics, or socialist economics. And, second, things which can't be quantified don't exist, at least for the purposes of rational discussion. Until we can define this commodity in a way we can measure it -- so we can talk about facts, instead of opinions -- then we're just flaming. And definitions that depend on plebiscites are a guarantee of flaming. > Market demand may very well be an adequate reflection of the demands >of the society. But my demand for food won't give me a supply in >Libertaria if I have no money and no job. Guess I will have to hit you >over the head and steal yours. Such is Libertaria. The notion that charity would be dead in Libertaria is amusing and entirely without foundation. Most of the major charitable organizations in this country started during the late 19th Century, when there was no welfare. Even now, with ruinous taxation sapping people's incomes, charitable giving is very high. Do you honestly believe that your fellowman is so selfish that he won't contribute to help those in need? And if you do, then why do you trust his nobility at the ballot box? The implications of your note seem to be that man is inherently selfish on his own, inherently just and generous en masse. I know of no evidence for this claim, nor any reason why it should be true. Can you offer me either of these? -- Rick.