[From Norman Hovda (2000.02.11.1145 MST)]
(Bill Powers (2000.04.06.1935 MDT)--
> It's _management_ that is protected against
>sharing the losses -- that's what corporations are for.
Gov gave corporations and sanctions this blessing, no?
nth
[From Bill Powers (2000.04.12.0332 MDT)]
Norman Hovda (2000.02.11.1145 MST)--
> It's _management_ that is protected against
>sharing the losses -- that's what corporations are for.Gov gave corporations and sanctions this blessing, no?
Mainly at the insistence of those who own and operate the corporations. The
critical event was granting corporations the status of individuals, so they
rather than their owners could be held responsible for debts and damages.
The theory was that this would encourage entrepreneurs to invest in risky
businesses of use to the public which otherwise might not be undertaken.
The effect, however, was to allow entrepreneurs to risk other people's
money without really taking any risk themselves (other than damage to their
pride if they fail). Often, the entrepreneur comes out of a bankruptcy much
richer than before. He just has to know how to time the giving of bonuses
to himself.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Norman Hovda (2000.04.12.0745 MST)]
[From Bill Powers (2000.04.12.0332 MDT)]
Norman Hovda (2000.02.11.1145 MST)--
>> > It's _management_ that is protected against
>> >sharing the losses -- that's what corporations are for.
>
>Gov gave corporations and sanctions this blessing, no?Mainly at the insistence of those who own and operate the corporations. The
critical event was granting corporations the status of individuals, so they
rather than their owners could be held responsible for debts and damages.
The theory was that this would encourage entrepreneurs to invest in risky
businesses of use to the public which otherwise might not be undertaken.
The effect, however, was to allow entrepreneurs to risk other people's
money without really taking any risk themselves (other than damage to their
pride if they fail). Often, the entrepreneur comes out of a bankruptcy much
richer than before. He just has to know how to time the giving of bonuses
to himself.Best,
Bill P.
Nonetheless, without such _gov granted_ protection, real live human
individuals would be held to a possibly higher standard of accountability.
e.g., Would the tobacco industry been able to pull off the perceptual
distortions for as long as they did without such gov sanctioned
*corporate* protections?
Best,
nth
[From Bill Powers (2000.04.1254 MDT)]
Norman Hovda (2000.04.12.0745 MST)--
Nonetheless, without such _gov granted_ protection, real live human
individuals would be held to a possibly higher standard of accountability.
Held by whom -- the market? I think businesses figured out long ago how to
subvert market forces. Indeed, that's the main reason that government
regulations came into being, isn't it? Maybe the first thing that
businesses would do, if government were eliminated, would be to establish
their own.
If businesses tried to get away with a lower standard by getting the
government to go along, wouldn't you expect them to try to do the same
thing by some other means if there were no government? Nothing says that
unscrupulous businessmen are also dumb. That's the problem -- they can
drive the scrupulous ones out of business by clever dealing, helped along
by the fact that there are certain things that honest businessmen won't do
even to save themselves. The dishonest businessman will find a way to
render competition ineffective, even if this means applying the torch at
midnight. If there are no rules, there are no rules.
I'm not being far-fetched or pessimistic. There is nothing I could think of
that some businessmen _could_ do that they haven't done in fact. I'm sure
that at home and at a dinner party, most businessmen are pleasant,
considerate, congenial people. But put them behind a desk and it's Me First
and Anything Goes. That's not part of my idea of the good life.
Best,
Bill P.
[Norman Hovda (2000.04.12.1110 MST)]
[From Bill Powers (2000.04.1254 MDT)]
I'm not being far-fetched or pessimistic. There is nothing I could think of
that some businessmen _could_ do that they haven't done in fact. I'm sure
that at home and at a dinner party, most businessmen are pleasant,
considerate, congenial people. But put them behind a desk and it's Me First
and Anything Goes. That's not part of my idea of the good life.Best,
Bill P.
Nor mind. But to expect that a patriarchal gov is gonna do it for you is a
lord of the flies fantasy. I personally hold accountable those with whom I
have relationship. If I am unable to protect myself, through the voluntary
contract and cooperation, then the relationship ends or never starts in
the first place. I'll do my shopping elsewhere.
What puzzles me is your apparent reference level belief that something
magical happens when we put an elected official or bureaucrat behind
that same desk. What can be done, will be done with, or without, gov or
law.
IMO, human "weaknesses" are best modulated and regulated by free
markets and that efforts made to _control_ market processes (price
control systems) only increase the perceptual distortions resulting in
too much discomfort and painful disturbances for those least able to
afford it.
Best,
nth
[Shannon Williams (2000.04.12.2200 CST)]
Hi guys, this is a good thread. I am very interested in
the political campaigns this year, and this thread helps
me to develop my ideas.
[Norman Hovda (2000.04.12.1110 MST)]
If I am unable to protect myself, through the voluntary
contract and cooperation, then the relationship ends or never starts in
the first place. I'll do my shopping elsewhere.
Norman, your behavior is an attempt to control your perceptions. [Wedo agree on
that?] If you "do your shopping elsewhere", it is because
this behavior tends to bring your perceptions closer to your reference
points. What do you do if you do not believe that 'shopping around' will
alter your perceptions?
But to expect that a patriarchal gov is gonna do it for you is a
lord of the flies fantasy.
Has Bill used the word "patriarchal" to describe his ideas on government?Or is
that your depiction of his ideas?
What can be done, will be done with, or without, gov or law.
You mean that conflicts just spontaneously resolve? There are noprocesses which
affect this process one way or the other?
Shannon
[From Bill Powers (2000.04.13.0419 MDT)]
Norman Hovda (2000.04.12.1110 MST)--
What puzzles me is your apparent reference level belief that something
magical happens when we put an elected official or bureaucrat behind
that same desk. What can be done, will be done with, or without, gov or
law.
As I see it, we make laws because some people refuse to deal with others in
an honest and considerate way. What is the alternative to a legal system
with law enforcement? It is for everyone to wear a gun. But we have tried
living that way, and it is extremely dangerous and unpleasant. The problem
is that everyone has a different idea about what constitutes a shooting
offense, and anyway the bad guys wear guns, too, and shoot back. Carrying a
gun around simply invites the bad guys to shoot you first, in the back and
from ambush if they can (especially if there are no laws against doing so).
If you're not armed, at least the bad guys will be less likely to kill you.
What most civilized countries have decided to do is to hire professionals
who are willing to carry guns and take the responsibility for protecting
us, as best they can, against criminals. Creating police forces causes its
own problems, because people do not handle power very well, but I still
think it's better than the alternative. It's interesting that a lot of
Russians are saying they wish they had Stalin and the KGB again, simply
because the "free enterprise" approach as practiced there seems to have
turned into a picnic for criminals.
So that's why I think we have laws and formal, professional, law
enforcement (however imperfect). What about government per se, with all its
annoying rules and contradictions and, in some cases, inefficiencies?
Again, I think we have established governments because they accomplish
things we can't do alone, and that private enterprises don't care about or
are positively against. If you have ever read the "statement of purpose" in
the articles of incorporation of a company, you will know it says nothing
about public obligations and concern for the well-being of ordinary people.
Typically, it says that the corporation exists to do any and all things
that are good for the corporation. If there were no government, of course
there would be no articles of incorporation, but the attitude would remain:
a business organization exists for its own good and the good of its owners,
and nobody else's.
If we are to do things for the common good, we can't do them through
private organizations because private organizations in general, with a few
exceptions, are concerned only about their own good relative to the
competition, not with common achievements that will help everybody
(including the competition). It sometimes seems to me that there are no
limits to human selfishness, in some people. I remember a conversation at
the newspaper where I worked, at a time when there was a lot of flooding
around Chicago, in the autumn. I remarked that where I lived, people were
having to spend a lot of time clearing leaves out of storm drain gratings,
because basements were getting flooded as sewers backed up. Two of my
colleages told me that I had it all wrong; if you clear the drains in front
of your house, they said, the water will just fill up the storm drains and
flood your basement; let someone else downstream clear the leaves out, and
that will relieve the flooding where you are. Of course by my friends'
reasoning, that will flood _their_ basements, but the response to that was
to congratulate themselves on their cleverness.
To me, the question is not just how I can survive, or what is good for me,
but how our whole society must be organized so that anyone in it, including
me of course, can live as good a life as possible. I simply can't accept
that I can live a good life when others can't; that bothers the hell out of
me, largely because my position in life is due primarily to good luck
rather than diligence, moral superiority, or hard work. And anyway, if I'm
living well while others aren't, then others will always be wanting to take
away what I have so they can live better, too. If I start worrying about
that, then I'll have to get myself some guns and ammunition, and learn to
shoot to kill people, and install security systems, and suspect every
stranger of plotting against me, and be suspicious of anyone who seems to
act friendly for no good reason, especially anyone who looks poor. That
would really amount to a horrible deterioration in my quality of life. I
know there are people who live like that, but I don't understand how they
can do it. It's such a miserable existence, I don't know why they bother.
I'd just as soon jump off a bridge and relieve the suspense.
Obviously, then, I can't really grasp the mind-set of a person who wants to
run a company just to gain as much for the company, meaning himself, as
possible. My immediate reaction is to wonder, "But what if _everyone_ acted
that way?" Of course that only shows that I have missed the point: some
people think that is the right way to live, and indeed the best way. They
even try to pretend that there's something noble about being ruthless and
selfish and unconcerned about the welfare of others. They don't seem very
connected with the rest of the human race.
All of which gets me to what I think are the most basic reasons we have
governments. A totally selfish person can't understand this, but many
people besides me are as concerned for the shape of the society they live
in as for their own personal well-being. In fact, for many people the
concerns are essentially the same: the quality of my life, they think,
depends on how I feel about the kind of world I live in. I would put it
this way: my system concepts are as much a part of me as my concept of
myself as an individual. So the way I would go about seeing to it that my
boat floats higher would be to try to arrange for everyone's boat to float
higher, which of course would include mine. But if mine were the only one
to rise, I'd begin to ask what went wrong.
That point of view is probably what people are sneering at when they use
the term "liberal". A liberal, of course, wants the government to do what
private enterprises won't do because they see nothing in it for themselves.
And the liberal wants the government to forbid people to do things that
seem to work against the most desirable form of society -- the form in
which most people could live as well as possible. This is precisely what
the enemies of government _don't_ want. They don't want to have to consider
anyone's welfare but their own. They don't want any limits put on the
effects their actions have on other people. They want to be left alone to
do only and exactly what advances their own position in the world. In
arguments like the present one, they offer a sop to the liberal: if you
will just let the market work freely, all inequities and other problems
will be resolved by the mystical dead hand of supply and demand. But such
comments are insincere; basically, they are ways of saying " ... and
therefore I don't have to concern myself about such problems."
The real argument, as I work my way through this series of thoughts, seems
fairly clear to me now. It is between those whose system concepts include
only their own welfare, and those whose system concepts put the good of the
whole social system on the same level as what is good for themselves as
individuals. The person who is concerned about the shape of the whole
system is obviously subject to constraints that do not operate in the
person whose only concern is individual welfare. Government represents an
attempt by those concerned with the whole system to impose the same
constraints, by force if necessary, on people who are concerned only about
their personal well-being. Of course sometimes the government is more
influenced by the self-interest side (the Republicans), but seldom strongly
enough to change its practices much.
What is interesting is that despite all the complaints from those who are
concerned only about their own welfare, and despite their considerable
economic power and their strong representation in government, we have a
government that does impose constraints on those people. Somehow the
weak-minded, namby-pamby, bleeding-heart liberals have prevailed! This,
considering the restraints under which liberals work and the relative lack
of restraints at work on the other side, is somewhat astonishing. Why have
not the business interests in the country risen up and taken over the
interfering government at the point of a gun, and abolished it? In part
this may be because these business interests do not trust each other enough
to form an effective alliance, but I think the real reason is simply they
they are not strong enough. The government, the product of liberal
do-gooder peaceniks if you listen to some people, has far more support than
the other side, and would simply crush such an uprising. The government is
clearly the most successful organization in this country, by any criterion
that businesses use to measure success. At least, the most successful
not-for-profit organization.
For the liberal concerned with peace and the general welfare, a government
that imposes its will by force is a serious contradiction. This is not part
of the picture of the good society. But the problem is the same kind as the
one faced by any person when confronted by a mugger or a rapist. Lacking
any magical formula that can divert the attack without violence, the only
solution, even for the preacher of nonviolence, is (when possible) to use
whatever force is required to fend off and capture the attacker. Thus for
the liberal, the government with its ability to force some standards of
decency on otherwise selfish people represents a stop-gap measure, to be
used until finally someone can come up with a better alternative. Of course
the use of force would cease immediately if businesses cleaned up their
acts voluntarily. But one may as well expect a mugger to do the same.
I probably sound as if I really have it in for businesses as being
inherently evil. That's not really true. The problem is not with
businessmen; they're just human beings like any of us. It's with what they
are taught to believe; it's in the myths and legends that circulate in the
business community, which any newcomer to the business world takes as the
gospel truth. Many of these myths, unfortunately, are self-fulfilling
prophecies. If you believe that a business must either grow or die, then
you will always be trying to grow your business, and as a result you will
put pressure on businesses in the same area to grow also. As long as there
is a limited market for widgets, for one widget-maker to grow requires that
the others lose business, so to protect themselves they have to grow, too.
But since there is a limited market, none of them ends up growing; they
waste their substance in futile competition, like gas stations having a
price war.
As long as most businessmen believe that they can't afford the expenses of
sentiment or morality or social welfare, they will compete without
incurring such expenses, which will make it hard for any other business in
the same area to afford those same expenses. It's the truly hard-hearted
businessman who makes all the other businessmen act the same way whether
they want to or not. The government forces all sorts of social concessions
to be made by businessmen; while this may have offended some, it clearly
has not prevented businesses from enjoying continuing success and
expansion. What it has prevented is giving any one business the edge over
others in the same area. A business that is forced to put guards on its
sawblades is not put at a disadvantage relative to other businesses that
also are required to put guards on their sawblades.
Exactly the same result, of course, could have occurred voluntarily, but if
there were no government authority to enforce the safety measures, sooner
or later some company would try to save money by selling its sawblade
guards, and immediately all the competitors would have to follow suit if
they didn't want to lose market share. All it takes is one cynical,
uncaring, selfish entrepreneur to force all the competitors to behave as if
they were the same way, even if they are really perfectly decent people.
This is a fundamental instability that always occurs when businesses try to
regulate themselves.
This is the other side of government regulations. Some people will always
howl about them. But sometimes, maybe even often, they really offer an
excuse for those businessmen who really do care about others to do the
right thing without losing their share of the market. Charitably, we can
suppose that the majority of businessmen really feel that way and, perhaps
secretly, welcome the "interference" even while putting on a public face of
disapproval, like kids being kept from fighting by an adult. Often at least
one kid feels relief at not having to get (or cause) hurt, although it's
not socially possible to say so.
This picture would be very clear, I think, if all government mandates and
prohibitions were well thought out and really furthered the end of
improving the quality of everyone's lives. Unfortunately, as in all human
enterprises, there is a scatter about the mean. Considering the sheer
volume of laws on the books, it seems unlikely that most of them really
accomplish what they are supposed to accomplish, or even that what they are
supposed to accomplish is a good thing. There is obviously a lot of room
for improvement here, and far too much ammunition is given to people who
use obvious stupidities as a reason for removing all constraints. I think
it's a mistake to defend against such arguments with any blanket denials.
If the liberal view is to prevail, as I hope it will, we will have to do
something about the stupidities, about the interference for the sake of
mere meddling, about the unneccessary restrictions and the restrictions
that accomplish the opposite of what is intended. It's not that the
complainers have no case; it's only that we could redress their grievances
without throwing out everything of value in the system. And unless we do
address those grievances, there is a danger of losing the ability to exert
constraints where they are really necessary.
Some balance on the other side would help, too. We can remove laws that are
useless and unjust and whimsical, but should we really remove laws that
make crimes like murder and rape subject to formal action and at least
incarceration to prevent repetition? Can we not agree on laws that are
overwhelmingly understood to be in the best interests of everyone? Of
course we all hope that some day we can find ways to deal with
transgressions that cure the transgressor, but until we know how to do
that, what other choice have we but to use force subject to formal
constraints that prevent barbarisms? And if we are to use such force,
should it not be administered in a careful, well-regulated, formal way?
In the same way, we can remove obligations and prohibitions that make the
conduct of business harder for no good reason. But must we also remove all
well-considered standards which apply evenly to all competing businesses,
and thus do not allow anyone to undercut the competition by ignoring them?
The very nature of free-enterprise business involves some instabilities
that can be prevented _only_ through some rule-making authority. In the
best of all possible worlds, businesses themselves would recognize the need
for shared standards which are not to be violated to gain a competitive
advantage. But why should businesses be burdened with administering such
binding agreements, when we already have in the government a mechanism for
doing the same thing? There is no reason in principle why the regulations
on the books could not be pared down to just those that further the aim of
improving social life, without burdening businesses unfairly or to no good
end. All it takes is the will to do so.
I would suggest that the first order of business ought to be removing all
the specific grounds for legitimate complaints about laws and regulations.
This is something we can do little by little, case by case. This would go a
long way toward reducing the tensions between the sides in this conflict.
While people complain in general terms, their reasons for complaint are
always specific. Remove the specific grievances, and the general conflict
should become less.
When we have achieved this happy result, it will be time to re-evaluate, to
see what else we really need to do -- if anything. By that time, the social
relationships involved may have changed greatly, so new directions of
change open up. But let us change what we can change, and leave speculation
about what to do next until the immediate job is done.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bruce Kodish (2000.04.12.1215 PDT)]
<< [From Bill Powers (2000.04.1254 MDT)]
Norman Hovda (2000.04.12.0745 MST)--
Nonetheless, without such _gov granted_ protection, real live human
individuals would be held to a possibly higher standard of accountability.
Held by whom -- the market? I think businesses figured out long ago how to
subvert market forces. Indeed, that's the main reason that government
regulations came into being, isn't it? Maybe the first thing that
businesses would do, if government were eliminated, would be to establish
their own.>>
There is a classic science fiction novel that explores this scenario in great
detail:
The Space Merchants by C.H. Kornbluth and Frederick Pohl.
Back into the void,
Bruce Kodish
[From Norman Hovda (2000.04.13.2255 MST)]
[From Bill Powers (2000.04.13.0419 MDT)]
Norman Hovda (2000.04.12.1110 MST)--
>What puzzles me is your apparent reference level belief that
something
>magical happens when we put an elected official or bureaucrat behind
>that same desk. What can be done, will be done with, or without,
gov or
>law.
As I see it, we make laws because some people refuse to deal with
others
in an honest and considerate way. What is the alternative to a legal
system with law enforcement?
Private security forces are among the fastest growing businesses.
Arbitration srvcs is another rapidly growing area. Some businesses
won't contract w/o consent to voluntary arbitration for any and all
disputes. Slowly but surely gov srvcs are being privatized (garbage, fire
and ambulance, etc.) and yielding ROI.
[snip]
It is for everyone to wear a gun. But we have tried
living that way, and it is extremely dangerous and unpleasant. The
problem is that everyone has a different idea about what constitutes a
shooting offense, and anyway the bad guys wear guns, too, and shoot
back. Carrying a gun around simply invites the bad guys to shoot you
first, in the back and from ambush if they can (especially if there are
no laws against doing so). If you're not armed, at least the bad guys
will be less likely to kill you. What most civilized countries have
decided to do is to hire professionals who are willing to carry guns and
take the responsibility for protecting us, as best they can, against
criminals. Creating police forces causes its own problems, because
people do not handle power very well, but I still think it's better than
the alternative. It's interesting that a lot of Russians are saying they
wish they had Stalin and the KGB again, simply because the "free
enterprise" approach as practiced there seems to have turned into a
picnic for criminals.
I'm not advocating a return to yesteryear. I don't believe an appeal for
anarchy (no leaders, no corporations, etc.) translates into no laws or
law enforcement. I think it unfair to compare a former gov of thugs, now
a mob of thugs, to "free enterprise" even if it is in quotes. The
distinguishing characteristic is the difference between eco v. gov power.
Force, and/or credible threat of overwhelming force or voluntary consent.
So that's why I think we have laws and formal, professional, law
enforcement (however imperfect). What about government per se, with
all
its annoying rules and contradictions and, in some cases,
inefficiencies? Again, I think we have established governments
because
they accomplish things we can't do alone, and that private enterprises
don't care about or are positively against. If you have ever read the
"statement of purpose" in the articles of incorporation of a company,
you will know it says nothing about public obligations and concern for
the well-being of ordinary people. Typically, it says that the
corporation exists to do any and all things that are good for the
corporation. If there were no government, of course there would be no
articles of incorporation, but the attitude would remain: a business
organization exists for its own good and the good of its owners, and
nobody else's.If we are to do things for the common good, we can't do them through
private organizations because private organizations in general, with a
few exceptions, are concerned only about their own good relative to
the
competition, not with common achievements that will help everybody
(including the competition). It sometimes seems to me that there are
no
limits to human selfishness, in some people.
And at what point do we reach a point of no return where costs to
*control* the incontrollable exceed the the benefits of such gov
sponsored catastrophic insurance? Even the serfs owed only 25% to
the king. The average taxpayer today is pushing 50% when you include
sales, income and property taxes.
I remember a conversation at
the newspaper where I worked, at a time when there was a lot of
flooding
around Chicago, in the autumn. I remarked that where I lived, people
were having to spend a lot of time clearing leaves out of storm drain
gratings, because basements were getting flooded as sewers backed
up.
Two of my colleages told me that I had it all wrong; if you clear the
drains in front of your house, they said, the water will just fill up
the storm drains and flood your basement; let someone else
downstream
clear the leaves out, and that will relieve the flooding where you are.
Of course by my friends' reasoning, that will flood _their_ basements,
but the response to that was to congratulate themselves on their
cleverness.
Had the same problem in my Chicago neighborhood... actually
southwest Evanston. Everyone agreed not mess with the leaves and
fortunately most homes remained above the waterline.
To me, the question is not just how I can survive, or what is good for
me, but how our whole society must be organized so that anyone in it,
including me of course, can live as good a life as possible. I simply
can't accept that I can live a good life when others can't; that bothers
the hell out of me, largely because my position in life is due primarily
to good luck rather than diligence, moral superiority, or hard work.
Hmmmm... somehow I find this hard to believe. Drop the "moral
superiority" (since I have no idea what that means) and I'll stick with
being impressed by your hard work and diligence.
We all have our share of good fortune and bad. Luck is a pretty primitive
concept no? Accidents of time and space befall us all, but how we
control those perceptions... "can't accept"... Hmmmmm... surely you
don't mean that literally - do you?
And anyway, if I'm
living well while others aren't, then others will always be wanting to
take away what I have so they can live better, too. If I start worrying
about that, then I'll have to get myself some guns and ammunition, and
learn to shoot to kill people, and install security systems, and suspect
every stranger of plotting against me, and be suspicious of anyone
who
seems to act friendly for no good reason, especially anyone who looks
poor. That would really amount to a horrible deterioration in my quality
of life. I know there are people who live like that, but I don't
understand how they can do it. It's such a miserable existence, I don't
know why they bother. I'd just as soon jump off a bridge and relieve the
suspense.
They control for different variables? They "accept" what you consider
disturbance? You and they may not _approve_ of their lot in life but
haven't you and they truly reorganized to _accept_ it?
Obviously, then, I can't really grasp the mind-set of a person who
wants
to run a company just to gain as much for the company, meaning
himself,
as possible. My immediate reaction is to wonder, "But what if
_everyone_
acted that way?" Of course that only shows that I have missed the
point:
some people think that is the right way to live, and indeed the best
way. They even try to pretend that there's something noble about being
ruthless and selfish and unconcerned about the welfare of others. They
don't seem very connected with the rest of the human race.
Those whom exhibit such tendencies in business are usually riddled
with self-defeat and left to their own devices eventually implode. Those
supported by limitless gov resources last indefinitely.
All of which gets me to what I think are the most basic reasons we
have
governments. A totally selfish person can't understand this, but many
people besides me are as concerned for the shape of the society they
live in as for their own personal well-being. In fact, for many people
the concerns are essentially the same: the quality of my life, they
think, depends on how I feel about the kind of world I live in. I would
put it this way: my system concepts are as much a part of me as my
concept of myself as an individual. So the way I would go about seeing
to it that my boat floats higher would be to try to arrange for
everyone's boat to float higher, which of course would include mine.
But
if mine were the only one to rise, I'd begin to ask what went wrong.
I think you speak very well here for the _vast majority_ of business
persons as well. Most are not so short sighted that they lose all sense
of what is important for a large satisfied pool of potential and actual
_repeat business_ customers.
That point of view is probably what people are sneering at when they
use
the term "liberal". A liberal, of course, wants the government to do
what private enterprises won't do because they see nothing in it for
themselves. And the liberal wants the government to forbid people to
do
things that seem to work against the most desirable form of society --
the form in which most people could live as well as possible. This is
precisely what the enemies of government _don't_ want. They don't
want
to have to consider anyone's welfare but their own. They don't want
any
limits put on the effects their actions have on other people. They want
to be left alone to do only and exactly what advances their own
position
in the world. In arguments like the present one, they offer a sop to the
liberal: if you will just let the market work freely, all inequities and
other problems will be resolved by the mystical dead hand of supply
and
demand. But such comments are insincere; basically, they are ways
of
saying " ... and therefore I don't have to concern myself about such
problems."
This continual focus on the extreme small percentage of incidents v.
total population offers important points of reference, no argument here,
but I continue to suggest that the vast majority do not behave in such
disturbing ways.
Most people, most of the time, do the best they can reducing the error
from their own disturbances and will often offer a helping hand to others,
if most personal levels of error are tolerable. To put such emphasis on,
to bind and commit "concerned" people's energy and resources, to pay
too high a price to constrain, control or otherwise disturb those who
typically are "unconcerned" seems very misdirected and wasteful IMO.
The real argument, as I work my way through this series of thoughts,
seems fairly clear to me now. It is between those whose system
concepts
include only their own welfare, and those whose system concepts put
the
good of the whole social system on the same level as what is good for
themselves as individuals. The person who is concerned about the
shape
of the whole system is obviously subject to constraints that do not
operate in the person whose only concern is individual welfare.
That "person whose ***only*** [my emphasis] concern is individual
welfare"... does s/he really exist? Do you encounter such a person or
persons everyday? What percent of total population are we taking about
here? Would these people really understand and practice "individual
welfare" or aren't these boogie men usually so disfunctional and self-
defeating and THE principle feature of their lives is having little or no
understanding of self-care or "personal well-being"? Is it possible to
control one's perceptions around the practice of "individual welfare" w/o
regard to one's context?
Government represents an
attempt by those concerned with the whole system to impose the
same
constraints, by force if necessary, on people who are concerned only
about their personal well-being. Of course sometimes the government
is
more influenced by the self-interest side (the Republicans), but seldom
strongly enough to change its practices much.What is interesting is that despite all the complaints from those who
are concerned only about their own welfare, and despite their
considerable economic power and their strong representation in
government, we have a government that does impose constraints on
those
people. Somehow the weak-minded, namby-pamby, bleeding-heart
liberals
have prevailed! This, considering the restraints under which liberals
work and the relative lack of restraints at work on the other side, is
somewhat astonishing. Why have not the business interests in the
country
risen up and taken over the interfering government at the point of a
gun, and abolished it?
Equal and opposite reaction perhaps? Poor timing? It is happening in
more manageable, bite size pieces. But the main point, and I'm prolly
making it poorly, is that economic power is not political power and
therefore business has no interest, except for the occasional Gold
Finger run amuck with the help of gov, in taking over total market share
UNLESS there is profit in doing so. If ROI in fact could be shown, then
the competition would be huge and fierce and I, as I imagine you too,
would not like to get caught in the cross-fire.
In part
this may be because these business interests do not trust each other
enough to form an effective alliance, but I think the real reason is
simply they they are not strong enough. The government, the product
of
liberal do-gooder peaceniks if you listen to some people, has far more
support than the other side, and would simply crush such an uprising.
The government is clearly the most successful organization in this
country, by any criterion that businesses use to measure success. At
least, the most successful not-for-profit organization.
Only at the wrong end of a gun - credible and overwhelming "might-
makes-right" use of force - no doubt about it.
For the liberal concerned with peace and the general welfare, a
government that imposes its will by force is a serious contradiction.
This is not part of the picture of the good society. But the problem is
the same kind as the one faced by any person when confronted by a
mugger
or a rapist. Lacking any magical formula that can divert the attack
without violence, the only solution, even for the preacher of
nonviolence, is (when possible) to use whatever force is required to
fend off and capture the attacker. Thus for the liberal, the government
with its ability to force some standards of decency on otherwise selfish
people represents a stop-gap measure, to be used until finally
someone
can come up with a better alternative. Of course the use of force would
cease immediately if businesses cleaned up their acts voluntarily. But
one may as well expect a mugger to do the same.
The tragedy of the commons is clear. As long as there is public land
upon which the unscrupulous will dump - the muggings will doubtless
continue.
So the challenge is to come up with a non-coercive methods for more
effectively dealing with the lazy, corrupt, bad, stupid, sick, disabled or
crazy humans whether they be in business or government, no? IMO this
happens quicker, easier, and less costly by the means exercised by
free, responsive and consenting adults; not rules and regs for the
obedient.
I probably sound as if I really have it in for businesses as being
inherently evil. That's not really true. The problem is not with
businessmen; they're just human beings like any of us. It's with what
they are taught to believe; it's in the myths and legends that circulate
in the business community, which any newcomer to the business
world
takes as the gospel truth. Many of these myths, unfortunately, are
self-fulfilling prophecies.
And business is the ***only*** endeavor in life that's possessed, that
has problems with people whom have been spooked by fixed ideas
(read systems concepts <g>)
If you believe that a business must either grow or die, then
you will always be trying to grow your business, and as a result you
will put pressure on businesses in the same area to grow also. As
long
as there is a limited market for widgets, for one widget-maker to grow
requires that the others lose business, so to protect themselves they
have to grow, too. But since there is a limited market, none of them
ends up growing; they waste their substance in futile competition, like
gas stations having a price war.
True and the market weeds out the poor performers over time... no more
four gas stations on a corner... whereas with gov we're blessed with
mohair subsidies until hell freezes over.
As long as most businessmen believe that they can't afford the
expenses
of sentiment or morality or social welfare, they will compete without
incurring such expenses, which will make it hard for any other
business
in the same area to afford those same expenses. It's the truly
hard-hearted businessman who makes all the other businessmen act
the
same way whether they want to or not. The government forces all
sorts of
social concessions to be made by businessmen; while this may have
offended some, it clearly has not prevented businesses from enjoying
continuing success and expansion. What it has prevented is giving
any
one business the edge over others in the same area. A business that
is
forced to put guards on its sawblades is not put at a disadvantage
relative to other businesses that also are required to put guards on
their sawblades.
Hmmmmm... I remember the time when... I think it was Weyerhauser
donated large sums of $$$$ to the Greens which were lobbying for
restricting access to public lands for lumber. Then it came out why...
years later as I recall... they owned all their own forests. Their
competition did not. Such concessions cut both ways. Most the time
gov is too stupid to know when it's getting pants'd. So once again, gov
raised the price of lumber for one of its corporations, just like they raise
the price of oranges, milk, guns and drugs.
Exactly the same result, of course, could have occurred voluntarily,
but
if there were no government authority to enforce the safety measures,
sooner or later some company would try to save money by selling its
sawblade guards, and immediately all the competitors would have to
follow suit if they didn't want to lose market share. All it takes is
one cynical, uncaring, selfish entrepreneur to force all the competitors
to behave as if they were the same way, even if they are really
perfectly decent people. This is a fundamental instability that always
occurs when businesses try to regulate themselves.
Who are these rogue business boogiemen that you speak of as if they
lurk inside every office or factory? Law suits, litigation, insurance costs,
etc. employee turn over, system downtime, etc. all cut into profits big
time and contribute mightily to safety standards and their enforcement.
Of course the bad boys get the press, free exposure and give the anti-
business opposition a whipping boy, but I read you as claiming
***only*** coercive gov is virtuous and responsible for all that's holy.
Some qualifiers would be most helpful for my level of error.
This is the other side of government regulations. Some people will
always howl about them. But sometimes, maybe even often, they
really
offer an excuse for those businessmen who really do care about
others to
do the right thing without losing their share of the market. Charitably,
we can suppose that the majority of businessmen really feel that way
and, perhaps secretly, welcome the "interference" even while putting
on
a public face of disapproval, like kids being kept from fighting by an
adult. Often at least one kid feels relief at not having to get (or
cause) hurt, although it's not socially possible to say so.
Well if this is the best I can get, my perception of error will have to
adjust downward... just a bit I guess. <g>
This picture would be very clear, I think, if all government mandates
and prohibitions were well thought out and really furthered the end of
improving the quality of everyone's lives. Unfortunately, as in all
human enterprises, there is a scatter about the mean. Considering the
sheer volume of laws on the books, it seems unlikely that most of
them
really accomplish what they are supposed to accomplish, or even that
what they are supposed to accomplish is a good thing. There is
obviously
a lot of room for improvement here, and far too much ammunition is
given
to people who use obvious stupidities as a reason for removing all
constraints. I think it's a mistake to defend against such arguments
with any blanket denials. If the liberal view is to prevail, as I hope
it will, we will have to do something about the stupidities, about the
interference for the sake of mere meddling, about the unneccessary
restrictions and the restrictions that accomplish the opposite of what
is intended. It's not that the complainers have no case; it's only that
we could redress their grievances without throwing out everything of
value in the system. And unless we do address those grievances,
there is
a danger of losing the ability to exert constraints where they are
really necessary.
Well, well, well. Preeeeeeaaaaaaach on brother Bill. Amen and amen.
Error gone!!
Some balance on the other side would help, too. We can remove laws
that
are useless and unjust and whimsical, but should we really remove
laws
that make crimes like murder and rape subject to formal action and at
least incarceration to prevent repetition?
Its hard to imagine a context where this isn't a positive.
Can we not agree on laws that are
overwhelmingly understood to be in the best interests of everyone? Of
course we all hope that some day we can find ways to deal with
transgressions that cure the transgressor, but until we know how to do
that, what other choice have we but to use force subject to formal
constraints that prevent barbarisms? And if we are to use such force,
should it not be administered in a careful, well-regulated, formal way?
Most certainly and I want you on my team.
In the same way, we can remove obligations and prohibitions that
make
the conduct of business harder for no good reason. But must we also
remove all well-considered standards which apply evenly to all
competing
businesses, and thus do not allow anyone to undercut the
competition by
ignoring them? The very nature of free-enterprise business involves
some
instabilities that can be prevented _only_ through some rule-making
authority. In the best of all possible worlds, businesses themselves
would recognize the need for shared standards which are not to be
violated to gain a competitive advantage. But why should businesses
be
burdened with administering such binding agreements, when we
already
have in the government a mechanism for doing the same thing? There
is no
reason in principle why the regulations on the books could not be
pared
down to just those that further the aim of improving social life,
without burdening businesses unfairly or to no good end. All it takes is
the will to do so.I would suggest that the first order of business ought to be removing
all the specific grounds for legitimate complaints about laws and
regulations. This is something we can do little by little, case by case.
This would go a long way toward reducing the tensions between the
sides
in this conflict. While people complain in general terms, their reasons
for complaint are always specific. Remove the specific grievances, and
the general conflict should become less.
Indeed and it does happen routinely w/o gov intervention. IOW, the less
gov the better.
yrs, are struggling mightily with these very issues and the chief
challenge is to prevent another competitor, traditional and/or electronic,
from coming out on top solely because of privilege, bus-in-bed-with-gov
machinations, and not on the competitive merits. Ideally the gov ought
be the neutral umpire, but it's not looking that way from my POV.
When we have achieved this happy result, it will be time to
re-evaluate, to see what else we really need to do -- if anything. By
that time, the social relationships involved may have changed greatly,
so new directions of change open up. But let us change what we can
change, and leave speculation about what to do next until the
immediate
job is done.
Best,
Bill P.
Enjoy,
nth
···
from my experience with the exchanges, of which I am a member of 25
[From Norman Hovda (2000.04.13.1710 MST)]
[From Bill Powers (2000.04.13.0419 MDT)]
Norman Hovda (2000.04.12.1110 MST)--
>What puzzles me is your apparent reference level belief that something
>magical happens when we put an elected official or bureaucrat behind that
>same desk. What can be done, will be done with, or without, gov or law.As I see it, we make laws because some people refuse to deal with others in
an honest and considerate way. What is the alternative to a legal system
with law enforcement?
Private security forces are among the fastest growing businesses.
Arbitration srvcs is another rapidly growing area. Some businesses
won't contract w/o consent to voluntary arbitration for any and all
disputes. Slowly but surely gov srvcs are being privatized (garbage, fire
and ambulance, etc.) and yielding ROI.
[snip]
It is for everyone to wear a gun. But we have tried
living that way, and it is extremely dangerous and unpleasant. The problem
is that everyone has a different idea about what constitutes a shooting
offense, and anyway the bad guys wear guns, too, and shoot back. Carrying a
gun around simply invites the bad guys to shoot you first, in the back and
from ambush if they can (especially if there are no laws against doing so).
If you're not armed, at least the bad guys will be less likely to kill you.
What most civilized countries have decided to do is to hire professionals
who are willing to carry guns and take the responsibility for protecting
us, as best they can, against criminals. Creating police forces causes its
own problems, because people do not handle power very well, but I still
think it's better than the alternative. It's interesting that a lot of
Russians are saying they wish they had Stalin and the KGB again, simply
because the "free enterprise" approach as practiced there seems to have
turned into a picnic for criminals.
I'm not advocating a return to yesteryear.
So that's why I think we have laws and formal, professional, law
enforcement (however imperfect). What about government per se, with all its
annoying rules and contradictions and, in some cases, inefficiencies?
Again, I think we have established governments because they accomplish
things we can't do alone, and that private enterprises don't care about or
are positively against. If you have ever read the "statement of purpose" in
the articles of incorporation of a company, you will know it says nothing
about public obligations and concern for the well-being of ordinary people.
Typically, it says that the corporation exists to do any and all things
that are good for the corporation. If there were no government, of course
there would be no articles of incorporation, but the attitude would remain:
a business organization exists for its own good and the good of its owners,
and nobody else's.If we are to do things for the common good, we can't do them through
private organizations because private organizations in general, with a few
exceptions, are concerned only about their own good relative to the
competition, not with common achievements that will help everybody
(including the competition). It sometimes seems to me that there are no
limits to human selfishness, in some people.
And at what point do we reach a point of no return where costs to
*control* the incontrollable exceed the the benefits of such gov
sponsored catastrophic insurance? Even the serfs only owed 25% to
the king. The average taxpayer today is pushing 50% when you include
sales, income and property taxes.
I remember a conversation at
the newspaper where I worked, at a time when there was a lot of flooding
around Chicago, in the autumn. I remarked that where I lived, people were
having to spend a lot of time clearing leaves out of storm drain gratings,
because basements were getting flooded as sewers backed up. Two of my
colleages told me that I had it all wrong; if you clear the drains in front
of your house, they said, the water will just fill up the storm drains and
flood your basement; let someone else downstream clear the leaves out, and
that will relieve the flooding where you are. Of course by my friends'
reasoning, that will flood _their_ basements, but the response to that was
to congratulate themselves on their cleverness.
Had the same problem in my Chicago neighborhood... actually
southwest Evanston. Everyone agreed not mess with the leaves and
fortunately most homes remained above the waterline.
To me, the question is not just how I can survive, or what is good for me,
but how our whole society must be organized so that anyone in it, including
me of course, can live as good a life as possible. I simply can't accept
that I can live a good life when others can't; that bothers the hell out of
me, largely because my position in life is due primarily to good luck
rather than diligence, moral superiority, or hard work.
Hmmmm... somehow I find this hard to believe. Drop the "moral
superiority" and I'm impressed by your hard work and diligence. We all
have our share of good fortune and bad. Luck is a pretty primitive
concept no? Accidents of time and space befall us all, but how we
control those perceptions... "can't accept"... Hmmmmm... surely you
don't mean that literally - do you?
And anyway, if I'm
living well while others aren't, then others will always be wanting to take
away what I have so they can live better, too. If I start worrying about
that, then I'll have to get myself some guns and ammunition, and learn to
shoot to kill people, and install security systems, and suspect every
stranger of plotting against me, and be suspicious of anyone who seems to
act friendly for no good reason, especially anyone who looks poor. That
would really amount to a horrible deterioration in my quality of life. I
know there are people who live like that, but I don't understand how they
can do it. It's such a miserable existence, I don't know why they bother.
I'd just as soon jump off a bridge and relieve the suspense.
They control for different variables? They "accept" what you consider
disturbance? You may not _approve_ of their lot in life but haven't you
truly reorganized to _accept_ it?
Obviously, then, I can't really grasp the mind-set of a person who wants to
run a company just to gain as much for the company, meaning himself, as
possible. My immediate reaction is to wonder, "But what if _everyone_ acted
that way?" Of course that only shows that I have missed the point: some
people think that is the right way to live, and indeed the best way. They
even try to pretend that there's something noble about being ruthless and
selfish and unconcerned about the welfare of others. They don't seem very
connected with the rest of the human race.
Those whom exhibit such tendencies in business are usually riddled
with self-defeat and left to their own devices eventually implode. Those
supported by limitless gov resources last indefinitely.
All of which gets me to what I think are the most basic reasons we have
governments. A totally selfish person can't understand this, but many
people besides me are as concerned for the shape of the society they live
in as for their own personal well-being. In fact, for many people the
concerns are essentially the same: the quality of my life, they think,
depends on how I feel about the kind of world I live in. I would put it
this way: my system concepts are as much a part of me as my concept of
myself as an individual. So the way I would go about seeing to it that my
boat floats higher would be to try to arrange for everyone's boat to float
higher, which of course would include mine. But if mine were the only one
to rise, I'd begin to ask what went wrong.
I think you speak very well here for the _vast majority_ of business
persons as well. Most are not so short sighted that they lose all sense
of what is important for a large satisfied pool of potential and actual
_repeat business_ customers.
That point of view is probably what people are sneering at when they use
the term "liberal". A liberal, of course, wants the government to do what
private enterprises won't do because they see nothing in it for themselves.
And the liberal wants the government to forbid people to do things that
seem to work against the most desirable form of society -- the form in
which most people could live as well as possible. This is precisely what
the enemies of government _don't_ want. They don't want to have to consider
anyone's welfare but their own. They don't want any limits put on the
effects their actions have on other people. They want to be left alone to
do only and exactly what advances their own position in the world. In
arguments like the present one, they offer a sop to the liberal: if you
will just let the market work freely, all inequities and other problems
will be resolved by the mystical dead hand of supply and demand. But such
comments are insincere; basically, they are ways of saying " ... and
therefore I don't have to concern myself about such problems."
This continual focus on the extreme small percentage of incidents v.
total population offers important points of reference, no argument here,
but I continue to suggest that the vast majority do not behave in such
disturbing ways.
Most people, most of the time, do the best they can reducing the error
from their own disturbances and will often offer a helping hand to others,
if most personal levels of error are tolerable. To put such emphasis on,
to bind and commit "concerned" people's energy and resources, to pay
too high a price to constrain, control or otherwise disturb those who
typically are "unconcerned" seems very misdirected and wasteful IMO.
The real argument, as I work my way through this series of thoughts, seems
fairly clear to me now. It is between those whose system concepts include
only their own welfare, and those whose system concepts put the good of the
whole social system on the same level as what is good for themselves as
individuals. The person who is concerned about the shape of the whole
system is obviously subject to constraints that do not operate in the
person whose only concern is individual welfare.
That "person whose ***only*** [my emphasis] concern is individual
welfare"... does s/he really exist? Do you encounter such a person or
persons everyday? What percent of total population are we taking about
here? Would these people really understand and practice "individual
welfare" or aren't these boogie men usually so disfunctional and self-
defeating and THE principle feature of their lives is having little or no
understanding of self-care or "personal well-being"? Is it possible to
control one's perceptions around the practice of "individual welfare" w/o
regard to one's context?
Government represents an
attempt by those concerned with the whole system to impose the same
constraints, by force if necessary, on people who are concerned only about
their personal well-being. Of course sometimes the government is more
influenced by the self-interest side (the Republicans), but seldom strongly
enough to change its practices much.What is interesting is that despite all the complaints from those who are
concerned only about their own welfare, and despite their considerable
economic power and their strong representation in government, we have a
government that does impose constraints on those people. Somehow the
weak-minded, namby-pamby, bleeding-heart liberals have prevailed! This,
considering the restraints under which liberals work and the relative lack
of restraints at work on the other side, is somewhat astonishing. Why have
not the business interests in the country risen up and taken over the
interfering government at the point of a gun, and abolished it?
Equal and opposite reaction perhaps? Poor timing? It is happening in
more manageable, bite size pieces. But the main point, and I'm prolly
making it poorly, is that economic power is not political power and
therefore business has no interest, except for the occasional Gold
Finger run amuck with the help of gov, in taking over total market share
UNLESS there is profit in doing so. If ROI in fact could be shown, then
the competition would be huge and fierce and I, as I imagine you too,
would not like to get caught in the cross-fire.
In part
this may be because these business interests do not trust each other enough
to form an effective alliance, but I think the real reason is simply they
they are not strong enough. The government, the product of liberal
do-gooder peaceniks if you listen to some people, has far more support than
the other side, and would simply crush such an uprising. The government is
clearly the most successful organization in this country, by any criterion
that businesses use to measure success. At least, the most successful
not-for-profit organization.
Only at the wrong end of a gun - credible and overwhelming "might-
makes-right" use of force - no doubt about it.
For the liberal concerned with peace and the general welfare, a government
that imposes its will by force is a serious contradiction. This is not part
of the picture of the good society. But the problem is the same kind as the
one faced by any person when confronted by a mugger or a rapist. Lacking
any magical formula that can divert the attack without violence, the only
solution, even for the preacher of nonviolence, is (when possible) to use
whatever force is required to fend off and capture the attacker. Thus for
the liberal, the government with its ability to force some standards of
decency on otherwise selfish people represents a stop-gap measure, to be
used until finally someone can come up with a better alternative. Of course
the use of force would cease immediately if businesses cleaned up their
acts voluntarily. But one may as well expect a mugger to do the same.
The tragedy of the commons is clear. As long as there is public land
upon which the unscrupulous will dump - the muggings will doubtless
continue.
So the challenge is to come up with a non-coercive methods for more
effectively dealing with the lazy, corrupt, bad, stupid, sick, disabled or
crazy humans whether they be in business or government, no? IMO this
happens quicker, easier, and less costly by the means exercised by
free, responsive and consenting adults; not rules and regs for the
obedient.
I probably sound as if I really have it in for businesses as being
inherently evil. That's not really true. The problem is not with
businessmen; they're just human beings like any of us. It's with what they
are taught to believe; it's in the myths and legends that circulate in the
business community, which any newcomer to the business world takes as the
gospel truth. Many of these myths, unfortunately, are self-fulfilling
prophecies.
And business is the ***only*** endeavor in life that's possessed, that
has problems with people whom have been spooked by fixed ideas
(read systems concepts <g>)
If you believe that a business must either grow or die, then
you will always be trying to grow your business, and as a result you will
put pressure on businesses in the same area to grow also. As long as there
is a limited market for widgets, for one widget-maker to grow requires that
the others lose business, so to protect themselves they have to grow, too.
But since there is a limited market, none of them ends up growing; they
waste their substance in futile competition, like gas stations having a
price war.
True and the market weeds out the poor performers over time... no more
four gas stations on a corner... whereas with gov we're blessed with
mohair subsidies until hell freezes over.
As long as most businessmen believe that they can't afford the expenses of
sentiment or morality or social welfare, they will compete without
incurring such expenses, which will make it hard for any other business in
the same area to afford those same expenses. It's the truly hard-hearted
businessman who makes all the other businessmen act the same way whether
they want to or not. The government forces all sorts of social concessions
to be made by businessmen; while this may have offended some, it clearly
has not prevented businesses from enjoying continuing success and
expansion. What it has prevented is giving any one business the edge over
others in the same area. A business that is forced to put guards on its
sawblades is not put at a disadvantage relative to other businesses that
also are required to put guards on their sawblades.
Hmmmmm... I remember the time Weyerhauser donated large sums of
$$$$ to the Greens which were lobbying for restricting access to public
lands for lumber. Then it came out why... years later as I recall... they
owned all their own forests. Their competition did not. Such
concessions cut both ways. Most the time gov is too stupid to know
when it's getting pants'd. So once again, gov raised the price of lumber
for one of its corporations, just like they raise the price of guns and
drugs.
Exactly the same result, of course, could have occurred voluntarily, but if
there were no government authority to enforce the safety measures, sooner
or later some company would try to save money by selling its sawblade
guards, and immediately all the competitors would have to follow suit if
they didn't want to lose market share. All it takes is one cynical,
uncaring, selfish entrepreneur to force all the competitors to behave as if
they were the same way, even if they are really perfectly decent people.
This is a fundamental instability that always occurs when businesses try to
regulate themselves.
Who are these rogue business boogiemen that you speak of so
commonly? Law suits, litigation, insurance costs, etc. employee turn
over, system downtime, etc. all cut into profits big time and contribute
mightily to safety standards and enforcement. Of course the bad boys
get the press, free exposure and give the anti-business opposition a
whipping boy, but I read you as claiming ***only*** coercive gov is
virtuous and responsible gov is for all that's holy. Some qualifiers would
be most helpful for my level of error.
This is the other side of government regulations. Some people will always
howl about them. But sometimes, maybe even often, they really offer an
excuse for those businessmen who really do care about others to do the
right thing without losing their share of the market. Charitably, we can
suppose that the majority of businessmen really feel that way and, perhaps
secretly, welcome the "interference" even while putting on a public face of
disapproval, like kids being kept from fighting by an adult. Often at least
one kid feels relief at not having to get (or cause) hurt, although it's
not socially possible to say so.
Well if this is the best I can get, my perception of error will have to
adjust downward... just a bit I guess. <g>
This picture would be very clear, I think, if all government mandates and
prohibitions were well thought out and really furthered the end of
improving the quality of everyone's lives. Unfortunately, as in all human
enterprises, there is a scatter about the mean. Considering the sheer
volume of laws on the books, it seems unlikely that most of them really
accomplish what they are supposed to accomplish, or even that what they are
supposed to accomplish is a good thing. There is obviously a lot of room
for improvement here, and far too much ammunition is given to people who
use obvious stupidities as a reason for removing all constraints. I think
it's a mistake to defend against such arguments with any blanket denials.
If the liberal view is to prevail, as I hope it will, we will have to do
something about the stupidities, about the interference for the sake of
mere meddling, about the unneccessary restrictions and the restrictions
that accomplish the opposite of what is intended. It's not that the
complainers have no case; it's only that we could redress their grievances
without throwing out everything of value in the system. And unless we do
address those grievances, there is a danger of losing the ability to exert
constraints where they are really necessary.
Well, well, well. Preeeeeeaaaaaaach on brother Bill. Amen and amen.
Error gone!!
Some balance on the other side would help, too. We can remove laws that are
useless and unjust and whimsical, but should we really remove laws that
make crimes like murder and rape subject to formal action and at least
incarceration to prevent repetition?
Its hard to imagine a context where this isn't a positive.
Can we not agree on laws that are
overwhelmingly understood to be in the best interests of everyone? Of
course we all hope that some day we can find ways to deal with
transgressions that cure the transgressor, but until we know how to do
that, what other choice have we but to use force subject to formal
constraints that prevent barbarisms? And if we are to use such force,
should it not be administered in a careful, well-regulated, formal way?
Most certainly and I want you on my team.
In the same way, we can remove obligations and prohibitions that make the
conduct of business harder for no good reason. But must we also remove all
well-considered standards which apply evenly to all competing businesses,
and thus do not allow anyone to undercut the competition by ignoring them?
The very nature of free-enterprise business involves some instabilities
that can be prevented _only_ through some rule-making authority. In the
best of all possible worlds, businesses themselves would recognize the need
for shared standards which are not to be violated to gain a competitive
advantage. But why should businesses be burdened with administering such
binding agreements, when we already have in the government a mechanism for
doing the same thing? There is no reason in principle why the regulations
on the books could not be pared down to just those that further the aim of
improving social life, without burdening businesses unfairly or to no good
end. All it takes is the will to do so.I would suggest that the first order of business ought to be removing all
the specific grounds for legitimate complaints about laws and regulations.
This is something we can do little by little, case by case. This would go a
long way toward reducing the tensions between the sides in this conflict.
While people complain in general terms, their reasons for complaint are
always specific. Remove the specific grievances, and the general conflict
should become less.
Indeed and it does happen routinely w/o gov intervention. IOW, the less
gov the better. From my experience with the exchanges, of which I am a
member of 25 yrs, are struggling mightily with these very issues and the
chief challenge is to prevent another competitor, traditional and/or
electronic, from coming out on top solely because of privilege, bus-in-
bed-with-gov machinations, and not on the competitive merits. Ideally
the gov ought be the neutral umpire, but it's not looking that way from
my POV.
When we have achieved this happy result, it will be time to
re-evaluate, to see what else we really need to do -- if anything. By
that time, the social relationships involved may have changed
greatly, so new directions of change open up. But let us change what
we can change, and leave speculation about what to do next until the
immediate job is done.Best,
Bill P.
Enjoy,
nth
[From Bill Powers (2000.04.14.0912 MDT)]
Norman Hovda (2000.04.13.1710 MST)--
As I see it, we make laws because some people refuse to deal with others in
an honest and considerate way. What is the alternative to a legal system
with law enforcement?Private security forces are among the fastest growing businesses.
Arbitration srvcs is another rapidly growing area. Some businesses
won't contract w/o consent to voluntary arbitration for any and all
disputes. Slowly but surely gov srvcs are being privatized (garbage, fire
and ambulance, etc.) and yielding ROI.
So if you have enough money, you can be protected against threats, fires,
waste buildup, dying in a home accident, and so on. That's great for the
20% of us who have 46.8% of the national income. What do the lowest 20%,
who have 4.2% of the income (1997), do to obtain all these essential
services? What if you're not a business, but just a consumer and a worker?
Seek the protection of your employer (if you have a job)? Why does this
remind me of the lord with his knights in the castle, with the serfs in the
fields around?
Best,
Bill P.
[From Norman Hovda (2000.04.14.1130MST)]
[From Bill Powers (2000.04.14.0912 MDT)]
Norman Hovda (2000.04.13.1710 MST)--
>> As I see it, we make laws because some people refuse to deal with others
>> in an honest and considerate way. What is the alternative to a legal
>> system with law enforcement?
>
>Private security forces are among the fastest growing businesses.
>Arbitration srvcs is another rapidly growing area. Some businesses
>won't contract w/o consent to voluntary arbitration for any and all
>disputes. Slowly but surely gov srvcs are being privatized (garbage, fire
>and ambulance, etc.) and yielding ROI.So if you have enough money, you can be protected against threats, fires,
waste buildup, dying in a home accident, and so on. That's great for the
20% of us who have 46.8% of the national income. What do the lowest 20%,
who have 4.2% of the income (1997), do to obtain all these essential
services? What if you're not a business, but just a consumer and a worker?
Seek the protection of your employer (if you have a job)? Why does this
remind me of the lord with his knights in the castle, with the serfs in the
fields around?Best,
Bill P.
Imagine. Be creative. People survive around the world in all manner of
situations far worse. That's not to say that I'm suggesting throw them to
the wolves either. For folks like you and me whom enjoy the benefits
and payoffs of being helpful and would have a hard time with accepting
that my fellow neighbors should live in such squalor, we could
VOLUNTARILY offer own time, talents and $$$ to help them.
There's always gonna be robin hoods who'll want to offer "essential" help
with other people's money. Taxes aren't going away any time soon. But
if they did, it's similar to Mike's comments (drug war) about resources
needed to fund whatever some group feels and believes is "essential".
Either they'll organize and lobby for legislation and taxes, and/or
charitable orgs will help fill some of the gap and/or some entrepreneur
may come up with affordable alternatives.
I am not advocating for a jump to the perfect anarchy solution. I'm fully
aware of the evolutionary error-correcting processes, inch by impatient
inch, that accompany lasting change. All I ask is that people focus on
methods and means (application of PCT, B:CP Chap 17) that promote
greater reliance on free and voluntary consent, (i.e., free enterprise,
consumer is king - economic power), and less on obedient compliance
to rules and regs (i.e., command and control, enlightened "for their own
good", political point-of-a-gun power.)
<g>
nth
[From Bill Powers (2000.04.15.0402 MST)]
Norman Hovda (2000.04.14.1130MST)--
Imagine. Be creative. People survive around the world in all manner of
situations far worse.
Are we starting to imply threats now? It could be lots worse, so be
satisfied with what you have? Sounds familiar.
That's not to say that I'm suggesting throw them to
the wolves either. For folks like you and me whom enjoy the benefits
and payoffs of being helpful and would have a hard time with accepting
that my fellow neighbors should live in such squalor, we could
VOLUNTARILY offer own time, talents and $$$ to help them.
How nice. What's the track record on that way of dealing with poor people?
My impression is that volunteers can do a lot for a few people, as long as
no efficient organization is needed, but they can't handle 36.5 million
people (68% of whom are white) below the poverty line (in 1996, $16,000 per
year for a family of four, or about $4 per hour for two people working
full-time if they can get the work).
There's always gonna be robin hoods who'll want to offer "essential" help
with other people's money.
And there will always be Scrooges who will not do their share toward
helping the poor, the disabled, the mentally ill, the uneducated, and the
very young unless their arms are twisted very hard. This is simply a matter
of equity. Why should a few good-hearted people have to bear the whole
burden? This is that same old dilemma: the people who are trying to do good
are driven out by the people who refuse to play along. The more people who
share the burden of caring for the poor, the less the burden is on any one
of them. There simply isn't any way to do the job properly unless most
people contribute at least money to the effort. If the rich, who have most
of the money, won't participate, then we either have to let the poor sink
even further into misery, ill-health, and malnutrition, or we have to use
force to make the rich pay up. Which bothers us the most, watching poor
people starve, or forcing the rich to do what their consciences don't
demand of them? There's not much conflict there for me.
Even now, _with_ the laws compelling more affluent people to contribute to
helping the poor (among many other projects), a fifth of the nation lives
from hand to mouth with no hope for the future. The resistance from the
rich to increasing the help is unceasing. But if the top 5% of the
population, which receives 20% of the income, were to give 20% of its
income to the poorest fifth (leaving the rich still with enormous incomes),
the income of the poorest fifth would double. That wouldn't bring them up
to the second fifth, but it would close the gap considerably. It would
eliminate vast pools of misery. It would also put a large amount of money
into the economy, since all these poor people would still spend most of
what they earned (even if they could now save a little toward their old
ages). Just think of the boost to the medical insurance industry! If the
top _fifth_ were to donate only 10% of what they make to the poor, the same
result would be achieved. Wal-mart and Kmart would celebrate, although
Tiffany's might look slightly peevish, with business off 20%.
But this is highly unlikely on a voluntary basis. Don't overlook the fact
that the present system already includes a taxation system that takes more
away from the rich than from the poor, and that channels a good deal of it
to the poor. These figures are all _after_ redistribution. Before
redistribution, capital income (the main income of the rich) is about 60%
of the pie; after redistribution it is about 40%. Without the taxation
system (and minimum-wage laws), the poorest fifth would have an income
considerably less than its present (well, 1996) 4.2% of the total. If all
these taxes were removed, and all laws requiring the payment of at least
some minimum to workers were abolished, do you think the rich would
suddenly acquire consciences and pitch in to abolish poverty? Not likely,
when the attitude of the rich toward the "deserving poor" seems to be that
they deserve to be poor.
Taxes aren't going away any time soon. But
if they did, it's similar to Mike's comments (drug war) about resources
needed to fund whatever some group feels and believes is "essential".
Either they'll organize and lobby for legislation and taxes, and/or
charitable orgs will help fill some of the gap and/or some entrepreneur
may come up with affordable alternatives.
In other words, leave it to God. Sorry if I'm unimpressed. We're talking
now about a very deep conflict between us at the systems concept level,
which so far is completely unresolvable, as well as unpostponeable. Nothing
I could do myself, including donating all my time and income, would make a
ripple in the pool of poverty. Only a _national_ effort can make a
difference, but with so many affluent people resenting even the existence
of the poor, we simply can't get that national effort going.
I am not advocating for a jump to the perfect anarchy solution. I'm fully
aware of the evolutionary error-correcting processes, inch by impatient
inch, that accompany lasting change. All I ask is that people focus on
methods and means (application of PCT, B:CP Chap 17) that promote
greater reliance on free and voluntary consent, (i.e., free enterprise,
consumer is king - economic power), and less on obedient compliance
to rules and regs (i.e., command and control, enlightened "for their own
good", political point-of-a-gun power.)
The robbers really resent finding the gun in someone else's hands for a
change. "Do what I want or you don't get paid" is a pretty lethal-looking
weapon to someone in the lower income brackets trying to support a family,
especially if anyone is sick. Starvation works slowly, but at least as fast
as the courts. All these complaints about rules and regulations sound
highly suspicious to me. That's why I want to start dealing with the
problem on a case-by-case basis. I want to know exactly _which_ rules and
regulations a person wants to abolish first.
Are you a maker of transformers who drains old PCB-bearing oil into a
nearby creek? I think I could predict which rules and regulations you would
like to abolish first. Are you a large vegetable grower who hires illegal
aliens to pick the crop at $2.50 per hour? Your preferences, too, would
also be pretty predictable. Are you a drug peddler making a good living
from your stand outside the junior high school playground? A gas station
operator who gets together with the other operators periodically to decide
what the lowest price shall be? A small businessman who nets $100,000 per
year for himself but pays his four employees less than a grown person needs
to live on? A contractor who fits out a Space Shuttle engine with parts
from the reject bin? If you were any of these people or a hundred more like
them, wouldn't you have some pretty specific opinions about which rules and
regulations you would like to see off the books as soon as possible?
The thing is, if a person complains too loudly about rules and regulations
that too obviously are hindering that persons' ability to make more money
or get more power, he is more likely to be greeted with guffaws than with
sympathy. Sure, Mr. Riley, and wouldn't it be grand for you if robbing
banks weren't against the law? Well, there's no law against you buying me a
drink, is there?
So the safest thing to do is to adopt a philosophical position (I believe
you would refer to it as a "one size fits all" position) which requires the
elimination of ALL rules and regulations. Then you don't have to identify
the particular ones that you would dearly like to be rid of. You can appear
to be appealing to Higher Principles, without revealing that hidden in
there is a particular rule or regulation that seriously inconveniences you,
and perhaps makes you fearful of discovery (been doing any insider trading
recently?).
If, of course, specific rules and regulations prove to be unworthy of
further existence, they should be eliminated. But when we get rid of those,
there will be two kinds of residue: the laws everyone agrees are essential
to the continued existence of a civilized society, and the laws that
powerful people either want to continue or want to abolish because of their
impact on those people's less savory business practices.
The final category will be the hardest to deal with. Money is power. With
enough money, you can hire your own standing army and use it to impose your
political aims on anyone with different aims, but a smaller army. If there
is a government, you can apply your money to keep the government from using
its physical power on you, and to persuade it to use that power on your
rivals or enemies instead. Political power is clearly subsidiary to
economic power, when the economic power is used to buy the political power.
Even without a political system, the economic power can still be used to
buy sufficient physical force to get you what you want or help you keep
what you have. That's one reason for the upsurge in private security
forces. I hope you don't think that poor people are hiring security forces
to keep from being robbed by rich people.
This argument isn't going to go away, but it's not going to be resolved,
either. If we take the piecemeal approach, one rule or regulation at a
time, at least we can stay on neutral ground as long as possible. We are
simply not going to agree on a _general_ solution to all these problems.
The only way to get a general solution is to let it emerge from a host of
specific ones. We shouldn't proclaim ourselves to be capitalists or
communists or socialists or libertarians or anarchists, or anything that
commits us to a single rigid framework. We should keep our aims practical
and our horizons close.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Mike Acree (2000.0421.1619 PDT)]
Bill Powers (2000.04.15.0402 MST)--
We're talking
now about a very deep conflict between us at the systems concept level,
which so far is completely unresolvable, as well as unpostponeable.
It would be a shame to overstate the difference in system concepts. I'm not
sure whether system concepts include means as well as ends--I believe you
have made a case that they do--but the difference seems to have more to do
with the former in any case. I'm thinking of the couple of paragraphs in a
previous post of yours (2000.0413.0419) to which I said "Amen."
Nothing
I could do myself, including donating all my time and income, would make a
ripple in the pool of poverty. Only a _national_ effort can make a
difference, but with so many affluent people resenting even the existence
of the poor, we simply can't get that national effort going.
Your first sentence here seems key to me, and it is much too glibly cynical.
The way the world gets changed is by people getting off their duff and doing
something. You are literally correct that it is rare for an individual to
make a discernible difference, though it happens: Norman Horlaug (if I
remember his name correctly) developed a new pest-resistant strain of wheat
which at least tripled the yields in India and Mexico (he got the Nobel
Peace Prize in 1970). Notice that his contribution exemplifies what you
have said elsewhere about the source of increases in productivity: human
ingenuity. His feeding the poor in India and Mexico did not involve taking
anything away from the rich. But much more commonly people change the world
by banding together to work with like-minded people. There are certainly
observations to support an impression of either optimism or pessimism about
the efficacy of such efforts; but I, for one, have more often been impressed
with people's generosity. That's true in my own occasional charitable
fund-raising efforts, and in just browsing my college alumni magazines.
It's simply too easily cynical to sit back and say, "Nothing I do can make a
difference; therefore give me a gun (get the government to force others to
do what I want)." I wonder if you are speaking here as a victim of burn-out
from long years of charitable giving and volunteer work. Such burn-out is a
real phenomenon; but my impression is that it typically results from
continuing to bail with a sieve rather than trying to patch the holes. It's
well known that activism promotes optimism, even if it's partly illusory.
And, for what it's worth, I think a society of people who _feel_ efficacious
is less dangerous than one where they feel powerless. Powerlessness
corrupts.
I don't mean to imply that you personally should spend even one minute on
charitable volunteer work. In my opinion, whatever you do in building bugs
and writing makes a far more important and unique contribution to social
good. It occurred to me, in reading over Phil Runkel's tribute last
October, that, if I could save but one book for the future of civilization,
it would be yours. (That will be less surprising to you than to me, since I
know something of the competition it had to beat.) But that notably
_hasn't_ brought you much experience of efficacy in terms of its impact, and
I worry a little about the psychological consequences of that for you.
(That's a presumption; I'm sorry; I mean it as a friendly concern, rather
than an ad hominem argument.)
All these complaints about rules and regulations sound
highly suspicious to me. That's why I want to start dealing with the
problem on a case-by-case basis. I want to know exactly _which_ rules and
regulations a person wants to abolish first.
I would start by abolishing all victimless crime laws, and granting amnesty
to all those presently incarcerated for nonviolent drug (or sex) offenses.
I would have no personal interest in drugs if they were legal and free. But
I would start with these laws because their repeal would cost nothing. Laws
mandating transfer payments would take more time to change, since financial
provision has to be made for transitions like privatizing Social Security.
So the safest thing to do is to adopt a philosophical position (I believe
you would refer to it as a "one size fits all" position) which requires the
elimination of ALL rules and regulations. Then you don't have to identify
the particular ones that you would dearly like to be rid of. You can appear
to be appealing to Higher Principles, without revealing that hidden in
there is a particular rule or regulation that seriously inconveniences you,
and perhaps makes you fearful of discovery (been doing any insider trading
recently?).
I personally live as comfortably as anyone I know with existing laws and
regulations. I haven't even gotten a speeding or a parking ticket in over
20 years. I've known my share of anarchists and libertarians over the last
30 years, and I haven't known any for whom the system concept--the vision of
a good society--wasn't the primary motivation, rather than some particular
burdensome law.
All best,
Mike
[From Bill Powers (2000.04.22.0504 MDT)]
Mike Acree (2000.0421.1619 PDT)--
Nothing I could do myself, including donating all my time and income,
would >>make a ripple in the pool of poverty. Only a _national_ effort can
make a
difference, but with so many affluent people resenting even the existence
of the poor, we simply can't get that national effort going.Your first sentence here seems key to me, and it is much too glibly cynical.
I don't see it as cynical. It's just a fact. I was trying to say that
poverty is not a problem that's amenable to volunteer-level effort; such
efforts are much too feeble, although they can do much good, and have done
so, for limited numbers of people while the money lasts. Can you recall any
volunteer effort that has succeeded in _removing_ any major social problem?
Mostly, they just make things a little better for a few people, which is no
small thing but no big one, either. Remember, I'm not talking about a world
made of nice generous compassionate anarchists, but the world we actually
live in, in which most people are more concerned with the survival of
themselves and their immediate circles of family and friends than with what
happens to strangers.
The way the world gets changed is by people getting off their duff and doing
something.
True, but you need means as well as aims. It's the means that are beyond
individual efforts when the problem is big enough.
You are literally correct that it is rare for an individual to
make a discernible difference, though it happens: Norman Horlaug (if I
remember his name correctly) developed a new pest-resistant strain of wheat
which at least tripled the yields in India and Mexico (he got the Nobel
Peace Prize in 1970). Notice that his contribution exemplifies what you
have said elsewhere about the source of increases in productivity: human
ingenuity.
He did that as a volunteer working on his own time and spending only what
he earned doing some other kind of job and didn't need to live on? I
suspect that he had rather a lot of support and spent mostly other people's
money ...
... especially when it came to "feeding the poor," which I'm sure was done
largely by someone else and with someone else's funds. Ingenuity is free,
but putting its fruits into practical use requires a social infrastructure
and a way to cover expenses.
His feeding the poor in India and Mexico did not involve taking
anything away from the rich.
Really? No government grants? No tax money? No University support? I
suspect that rather a lot of the money he used for his research, directly
and indirectly, was taken away from the rich through taxation.
But much more commonly people change the world
by banding together to work with like-minded people.
Yes. That is called called "establishing a government."
How does this banding together work, and how do the bands that result deal
with non-like-minded people who would wreck the cooperation? How is the
work of like-minded people coordinated, and who pays for it (in whatever
coin), and who benefits? If you start asking realistic questions, you soon
find yourself talking about social functions that look more and more like a
government, both in terms of achieving group ends and protecting the group
against its enemies.
It's simply too easily cynical to sit back and say, "Nothing I do can make a
difference; therefore give me a gun (get the government to force others to
do what I want)."
Nobody here said that, least of all I. I think I am doing something that
will eventually make a difference; it just doesn't happen to be through
volunteering my time and money to help the poor. Neither, obviously, does
it involve invoking governmental law enforcement to make others behave as I
want.
But I see the uses of government as extending far beyond enforcement of
laws. Enforcement of laws is (ideally) needed only to curb those who, if
allowed free rein, would frustrate the will of others and make civilization
impossible. The other role of government, the more important one, is to
accomplish things that would be too expensive and inefficient for any
individual to attempt, but are too important to put on a commercial basis
(such as road-building, health care or fire fighting). And please, I've
heard the lines about private fire-fighting, and don't believe a word of
it. The poor man's hovel would burn down, tough luck to him, unless the
flames threatened to spread to a paid-up member's house.
<I wonder if you are speaking here as a victim of burn-out
from long years of charitable giving and volunteer work.
No, I'm not burned out, and certainly not from charitable giving. A little
tired, maybe, of pointless discussions of hypothetical futures. I'm
speaking as one who has lived with his own fiery pronouncements from his
youth for an additional 30 years or so, and come to find some of them
embarrassing. As you and Norm Hovda some day will.
Powerlessness corrupts.
So does power. So let's lop off the ends, and we'll be fine.
All these complaints about rules and regulations sound
highly suspicious to me. That's why I want to start dealing with the
problem on a case-by-case basis. I want to know exactly _which_ rules and
regulations a person wants to abolish first.I would start by abolishing all victimless crime laws, and granting amnesty
to all those presently incarcerated for nonviolent drug (or sex) offenses.
I'm glad you aren't in charge, then. "Victimless" crimes are seldom really
victimless, once you turn a brain cell or two to questioning that concept.
When your 12-year old daughter becomes addicted to drugs and starts
stealing from you and from friends and drops out of school (or tries to)
and finally runs away, how can you say there are no victims? First of all,
the heartbreak of her own family and the effects on their welfare --
brothers and sisters, as well as parents -- can be devastating. No person
is so alone that a crime against himself is not also a crime against
others. My example is not, by the way, autobiographical. It's just
commonplace.
A nonviolent drug offense is to visit the town park and sell drugs in a
friendly and peaceful way to all the teenagers and sub-teenagers whom you
can persuade that it's cool. I wouldn't want to grant the pushers amnesty
unless I were free to carry a gun and use it to fumigate where I thought it
was needed.
I _want_ those sons of bitches in jail or at least out of my world, forever.
I would have no personal interest in drugs if they were legal and free. But
I would start with these laws because their repeal would cost nothing.
Then you must be feeling very protective of the pushers in the schoolyard.
Drugs are not going to be free -- somebody has to pay for growing them,
extracting the goodies, shipping them, distributing them, and covering all
the costs involved from start to finish. And without any laws, what is to
prevent people who see the lucrative possibilities from taking over the
trade and jacking up the prices, and putting us right back where we were?
Shoot, marijuana was once close to free; I remember my maternal
grandmother, who was dying of what they called "TB" but was probably lung
cancer, smoking Cubebs and giggling. That didn't last -- either her life or
the price of marijuana.
I notice you leave out "sex." Is that the one that you have a personal
stake in? Just asking.
What you refuse, apparently, to admit is that there are reasons for having
governments and laws. Nobody made us have them; they are actions taken at
the social level to redress what are perceived as wrongs and promote what
is perceived as the general welfare. Governments exist for the same reason
corporations and volunteer organizations exist: because there are things
people want done that they can't do or don't want to do alone. There is
nobody to complain to about such entities except the same people who
created them, and keep re-creating them, and who, I maintain, will _keep
on_ re-creating them as long as people try to live in groups. At least
until human ingenuity discovers how to achieve the same ends by different
means (which it hasn't done yet).
As with any other human endeavor, governments harbor irrationalities,
inequities, and excesses, and these should by all means be corrected. Given
enough time, they will be corrected; they _are_ being corrected, by people
as they are.
Laws
mandating transfer payments would take more time to change, since financial
provision has to be made for transitions like privatizing Social Security.
Why should I start allowing some private party to remove as much as he can
get away with of what I have contributed to Social Security to further his
own welfare? I already have a manager hired by the public to do the money
management, and doing it very well indeed at an absolutely minimal cost
that no private contractor would even _want_ to match. There aren't even
any stockholders or princely CEOs or private owners skimming profits off
the top. Of course some of the money managers are crooked -- certain
members of Congress -- but that's a different proposition. I wouldn't want
to hand that job -- of being crooked -- over to private enterprise, which
is already good enough at it. Remember, it was private enterprise that
decided they had a greater need for stocks of pension money than the people
who would become pensioners had. Saaah-reee, you don't have a pension any
more!
I've known my share of anarchists and libertarians over the last
30 years, and I haven't known any for whom the system concept--the vision of
a good society--wasn't the primary motivation, rather than some particular
burdensome law.
I'm glad you inserted that "burdensome" where you did, implying that it's
only the burdensome laws to which anarchists and libertarians object, in
turn implying that there are (perhaps many) nonburdensome ones. But I
dispute whether anarchists and libertarians are concerned with the "good
society." I don't think they want anything called "society" at all --
anything implying a social organization larger than an individual and a few
cronies.
In an underpopulated world, anarchy and libertarianism might be feasible in
well-isolated pockets. If they were isolated enough, their members would
have to interact only with "like-minded" people, and never clash with those
who wanted to do things at the social level in a different way. Something
like this happened in the few decades and the few places in which the "Wild
West" existed. The Law of the Six-Gun substituted for the rule of formal
law, and for those with six-guns and good enough aim, the result was
satisfying. For everyone else it was a dangerous and miserable time, and
just as soon as possible, the Wild West was swept away into the garbage.
Except in the sentimentally-gilded imaginations of the gullible who never
had to live through it.
In my view, we (the human race) are in the middle of a continuous
centuries-long effort to improve the human condition, doing what we have
found is possible and necessary, protecting ourselves as best we can,
supporting each other to the extent that we feel we have a surplus, always
working to make something a little better. In the long run, that will
probably work. What will not work are simple and facile solutions that
require all zebras to dress in spots, and all wolves to baa like sheep.
Most of us get over our teen-aged resentment of being told what to do for
reasons we don't understand. We figure out the reasons, and come to agree
with some of them. There's no payoff to hanging grimly on to the
righteousness of the young, refusing to consider that the adults may have
had some excuse for their behavior. If your only idea of social life is
still, after all these years, "Get off my case," you haven't let yourself
learn much.
Best,
Bill P.