From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: Why not feudalism?
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 05:08:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.041619.28662@ornl.gov> jfmcbray@sacam.OREN.ORTN.EDU (Jason F McBrayer) writes:
>
>	Everyone seems to be writing as if the only alternatives were
>Socialism, lassais-faire Capitalism, and Feudalism.  As an anarchist
>(philosophically, anyway), I feel compelled to respond.  All of the
>aforementioned systems are means of dealing with scarcity, and are
>successful in vayring degrees.
>	Scarcity is an economic concept meaning, roughly, that there's not
>enough of everything to go around, and you have to find some way of
>distributing it.  Scarcity is fundamental to our understanding of
>economics, but if we look at the problem anthropologically, we learn that
>scarcity is NOT universal, and therefore, scarcity-based economies are not
>the only alternatives.
>	Scarcity began with increasing populations due to the invention of
>agriculture in the Neolithic.  Agriculture provided cheap calories at the
>cost of poor nutrition and calcified social structures.  The upshot is
>that once you start using agriculture as a means of survival, you're tied
>into (local, at least) overpopulation and scarcity.  Paleolithic and
>Mesolithic hunter-gatherer societies did not know scarcity, and dispite
>their lack of medical technology, had longer lifespans and better health
>than farmers of the middle ages, or even the 19th century.
>	Does this mean I'm suggesting a return to hunting and gathering? 
>Of course not.  Ignoring the cultural problems, the populatiion of the
>earth is simply too large to go back.  However, there is another
>alternative:  do away with scarcity!  What this requires is that
>production be increased to a level where the population can be supported,
>without the need for constant labour.  (Side note:  a bushman of the !Kung
>works about 4 hours a week)  Production must be unlinked from labour and
>capital.  When human populations were small, nature took care of this. 
>Now, I presume that it will require intensive genetic engineering and
>probably nanotechnology.  Until this is possible, there is no possibility
>of social or political justice.  Once it is, people's needs will be easily
>satisfied, and social and political problems will wither to a point where
>they can be dealt with on an individual scale, rather than a faceless
>"national crisis" scale as they are now.
>	Until the problem of scarcity is solved, we need to work towards
>whatever economic system minimizes suffering in the interim.  As much as I
>oppose it on principle, in my opinion, the most successful system is a
>mixed economy.
>
>_______________________________________________________________
>
>Jason F. McBrayer
>
	I think your assuming quite a bit here which is false.
First off, your measring the standard of living in terms of calories.  In
most modern day economies people can have as many calories of food as they
like with very little effort.  Second, you comment on primitive tribes as
having no scarcity problems.  This is pantently false.  To prove this,
look at the heights (yes I mean average height of an adult in cm.) of
Bushman, who have been integrated in South African culture vs. those that
have not.  They differ in height by about a full foot.  Do you really
think this is concidence, or a result of malnutrician for the Bushman.
	Scarcity generally now means
1)  Labor saving devices.
2)  Entertainment.
3)  Fashion.
4)  Medicine
	Your attempting to eliminate the problem by getting rid of 1-3. 
In other words solve the problem of scarcity by not having anything worth
owning.  Why?  Clearly the vast majority of people would rather work hard
and have 1-4 then not work hard and not have them.  The people have voted.

	Finally, any civ. without goods, has no security what so ever. 
Any civ. can do what they will to them without the slightest complexity. 
This state of constant anxiety alone would be enough to make technology
available.  

	Finally a quick question.  I've been assuming that the existance
of scarcit is some sort of negative, for the purpose of argument.  Why is
it one though?  



Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian