From: gleeson@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Red Mountain)
Subject: Re: The Lam philosophy (was Re: JJJ...)
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:20:07 GMT

In <dyfl.723949468@munagin> dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam) writes:
>brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones) writes:
>>So I'll turn it around.  Explain how society would function without, say,
>>taxation, which according to you is currently collected by "force".

>This is a rather wide task and I can do no better than give a very
>general answer.  Put simply, I envisage a society in which people's
>actions are co-ordinated by the market rather than the state.  Social
>bonds will be contractual rather than hegemonic in character.
>Furthermore, I favour an economic system based on private ownership
>of the means of production, commonly called capitalism.
>So far, all this is not inconsistent with the existence of a state
>and of (horror!) taxation.  This state would, however, not intervene
>in the operation of the market but confine itself to the protection
>of people and their property through its police and armed forces.
>This is the pure (classical) liberal position.
>Now, there are those who believe that the state is ill-suited to
>carry out even this limited function, which can be better carried out
>by private entities.  Even police services and laws can be brought
>under the sway of the market.  This is the "anarcho-capitalist"
>position.  I was recently brought around to this stand.

This is rather unfortunate. The system you describe may seem fine to
you, but I don't think you're considering the wider picture. This system
may work to a certain degree _if_ everybody was to start from the same
position economically and socially (no pun intended), but in the real
world, things are not so peachy. The economic "starting" position of
each individual is quite different from the next, and influenced by
many factors beyond the control of the individual, for example, the
economic state of the country they are born in, the economic or social
decisions of their parents, which are in turn limited by the same factors.
Everyone does not get an equal start. And in this situation (non-equal start,
which is the world as we know it), all the "anarcho-capitalist"/pure liberal
position will achieve is making the poor poorer and the rich richer. Even
if everyone is given an equal start, the system would degenerate within
one generation (or less) to a scenario of rich richer and poor poorer,
unless you had some system of giving everyone in a new generation an
equal start, but that would be a fair redistribution of wealth, which is
contrary to your proposed system. Of course your system has been tried
before (see laissez-faire economics), and fairly universally assessed to
be one encouraging oppression and exploitation on a large scale. But I
may be wrong in assuming that exploitation and oppression are things you
don't want to see. Please tell me I'm right. 

>I'm more interested in advancing the liberal position for now, since
>frankly I can't see much hope for anarchism in the near future.

Neither do most intelligent people. Most people would _hope_ to see
no anarchism in the future.

>I trust that by now I have convinced everybody I'm not joking.  I
>invite you to energetically assault the views I have stated.  As I
>said, I'm more interested in defending the non-anarchistic version of
>liberalism, but if you insist on talking about anarchy, I will
>oblige.

Well, perhaps you would care to outline how anarchy would be of benefit
for _all_ of society?

>>Explain how we'd care for the physically or intellectually disabled, how we'd
>>pay for schooling for everybody, how roads would be built, how laws would be
>>enforced, how parks would be maintained, etc etc.

>Let's take these one by one.

>Care for the physically or intellectually disabled.  There are ample
>ways of dealing with this through voluntary means.  Families,
>friends, charitable agencies, compassionate people.  If people are so
>cruel and uncaring that they're not willing to help them, what makes
>you think they will support a government which makes them do it?

What people support and what they do are often vastly different things.
Most people would rather have these sort of things paid out of taxes than
have to work them out themselves.

>Pay for schooling for everybody.  I believe in an unhampered free
>market for education.  To put it bluntly, I don't believe in paying
>for schooling for everybody.  Consumers will make their choices about
>the value of education compared to other things, and the provision of
>education (and all other things) would be carried out accordingly.

And better education goes to those who can afford it, and those who can't,
through no fault of their own, are disadvantaged.

>>Taken at its most literal interpretation this might be reasonable, but your
>>concept of "force" goes much, much further than what most people would judge
>>as reasonable.

>I'm used to going much, much further than most people.

That's not the point, and you know it.

>>You take no account of all the intangibles (and some not so intangible)
>>benefits that you enjoy as a result of taxation money collected from other
>>people.

>All value judgements, all judgements of benefits and costs, whether
>tangible or intangible, are always subjective in nature.  You are the
>only person capable of judging whether some thing benefits you or
>harms you, or of two things, which one benefits you more.  This
>really is the central point.  See more below.

So, in other words, the amount and ways in which society benefits from 
taxation should be subject to the selfishness, or lack thereof, of the
members of society.

>>Would we still benefit if all this taxation was voluntary?

>That would differ among different people, as you observe.

And in the system _you_ describe, Daniel,
>>Of course the answer is no.  Some would benefit, but many would not, and this
>>is what you refuse to accept or have any moral conscience about.

>I accept perfectly that some people benefit (in their own judgment,
>of course) from state action.  The difference is that in a market
>transaction, both parties benefit in the sense that they prefer the
>expected consequences of participating in the transaction to the
>expected consequences of not participating.

Of course, if you don't wish to participate in society, you are perfectly
entitled to leave.

I think the big problem here is that you perhaps see a society with 
government as trying to bring everybody back to the same level where
nobody is poor and nobody is rich, nobody fails and nobody excels. But this
is not the purpose of government, IMO. Government, taxation, etc, etc (but
not endorsing everything every government does/has done) serves the purpose
of giving people a fair go in life and an equal start. If people decide
to not work, squander their wealth, etc., they are entitled to, but this
should not force their children to start life behind the 8-ball. The (intended)
purpose of government is to allow excellence and freedom, prevent inequality
and oppression, and help those who can't help themselves, and those who
are disadvantaged by the actions of others.

>OK, that's enough for now.  Let the fun begin.

Indeed.

Marty.
---------------------=============***O***=============-------------------------
Martin J. Gleeson  | Computer Science, Melbourne Uni, Oz |    ...  __o    Outta
gleeson@mundil.cs.mu.oz.au |     E Pluribus Unix         |  ...   -\<,       my
"We gladly feast on those who would subdue us." - Addams |  ....(_)/(_)..  way!
 "I can't give you brains, but I can give you a diploma." - The Wizard of Oz
---------------------=============***O***=============-------------------------