From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Wage Slavery (Was: BIG LIE about the market)
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:04:08 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <9204131512.AA17940@xuucp.ch.apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@APOLLO.HP.COM writes:
>
>>>  Nonetheless there are ample opportunities for a very wide range
>>>  of perfectly legal experiments at the level of the town or state.
>>>
>>Nonsense. We live in a unified worldwide economic system. Those who chose
>>to live outside ofthe monetary world will starve, those who chose to 
>>pretend that the state does not exist will go to jail.
>
>  Nevertheless there is nothing to stop, Amherst, say, from 
>  selling all the roads to private interests.  Or from making

state law.

>
>  On the flip side, they could vote an over-ride to proposition
>  2-1/2 and put in *serious* taxes on a wide variety of assets
>  and democratically vote to redistribute this money to the 
>  poor, or to perform a wide variety of other functions with
>  it.   Amherst is a relatively affluent town, with a relatively
>  small proportion of poor (nationally about 16% of the population
>  is below the poverty line - it's probably less in Amherst).  So
>  they could vote in some kind of government health insurance
>  for their citizens.

Ha. There is no way to avoid deadly free-rider problems here.
Even statewide, we face the  problem of "live free or die" New
Hampshirites taking social services when times are bad, and retreating
to their tax haven when times are good. As 
such mechanisms as GATT and free-trade agreements expand, the political
rights of citizens of continues to recede worldwide. In our system,
localities must compete for the favor of those with capital. Localities
which chose not to compete, will do as well as individuals who chose not
to beg for work. 

>  The point is that even local voters, and even in a state
>  like Massachusetts, have a lot of options for types of 
>  experiments that would prove quite enlightening to these
>  generally too speculative debates on alternatives to the
>  current approaches.

Totally unrealistic. Even if we could pass our own legislation without
approval of the Attorney General, even if local governments were not
emeshed in a web of state and federal mandates, local governments are
no match for large capital --legally or economically. 

Note that "propertarian" experiments are far more within the realm of
possibility than "communitarian" experiments. Schools can be privatized, but
factories cannot be given to worker cooperatives. The local government
can abandon its parks, but will face legal nightmares if it attempts to
abandon the costs of servicing new developments. In an era where 
local governments are scrapping around for the money to snow-plow the
roads, it is ridiculous to suppose that there is capital for a 
community investment bank or universal health coverage.

On the other hand, I do applaud your suggestion that those supporting
libertarian/propertarian and other free-market ideas first institute them in
their own communities. For example, those who believe that money is not
the answer to public school problems are invited to reduce the per-pupil
expenditures of their local schools to a cost-adjusted equivalence with
the per-pupil expenditures for schools in the South Bronx or 
Appalachia. And those who believe that civil order and housing problems
in poor neighborhoods are purely the 
the result of nothing but mysterious social choices by odd ethnic
groups are invited to support legislation banning housing subsidies to
the middle class. 

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu