From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Wage Slavery (Was: BIG LIE about the market)
Date: 10 Apr 92 02:03:45 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <9204091433.AA09534@xuucp.ch.apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@APOLLO.HP.COM writes:
>
>From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
>
>>Sure, what works is "correct", and what doesn't work is "incorrect". But,
>>mathematics, like much of life is experimental.
>
>  No kidding.  This is why I've advocated for libertarians, communists,
>  etc that they set up small experiments first as proof of concept
>  before they start telling us how 240-million-person nations ought 
>  to organize themselves.

Note that such experiments in worker self-management and radical 
syndicalism as the C.N.T. control of Catalonia in the mide 1930's have
been interesting but cut short by the intemperate reaction of those
who disagreed with the experimental goals. Self-contained societies are
rather rare these days, and isolated utopian experiments seem even more
unrealistic than radical changes of the larger society.


>>>   Good example.  The American Revolution JUST HAPPENED to turn out well.
>>>   But we only know this in hindsight.  And we also know (in hindsight)
>>>   that the vast majority of violent revolutions in human history are
>>>   either put down, or succeed militarily only to result in chaos or
>>>   the imposition of a new set of tyrants.   Someone may have been 
>>>   emotionally swayed by the romantic arguments of "Jefferson, Adams,
>>>   and Paine", but it's quite easy to poke holes in, or note the
>>>   vagueness in, their arguments intellectually.   
>>
>>And those who followed the other side? Were the tories intellectually
>>honest?  After all, the arguments in favor of following laws proclaimed
>>by a nutty english king cannot have been models of rational thought.
>
>  Who said they were?                                 

So, everyone who takes a moral stand is, by your logic, an intellectual
fraud. That's a pretty interesting stand itself. Do you have any
rigorous scientific backing for it?


>>Smugness is no substitute for rational thought. Let's apply the same
>>standards to the argument for leaving things as they are. What's your sample
>>space for concluding that the current US economic system will work well for
>>the next, say, 50 years? Remember, extrapolation from previous history
>>should be justified by showing that such new developments as the end of the
>>cold war and the decline of US manufacturing can be discounted.
>
>  I'm not saying it can.  All I'm saying is that the most successful
>  societal model, both in economic-prosperity terms, and in terms of 
>  abstract things like individual liberty and stability, is the modern,
>  mixed-market democracy.  This model has proven successful in a wide

Really? One could certainly make a strong argument that our "mixed market"
"democracy" is well on its way to making the planet uninhaitable. One could
also make a very well documented argument that our prosperity comes at the 
expense of others (e.g. the original inhabitants of the US, the 
people of the "developing nations" etc.). It's not particularly "rational"
or brave to conclude that since one is personally doing quite well at this
moment, things are working quite well.

>  variety of cultural and historical contexts.   So purely on the
>  basis of logical empiricism I am predicting that this will remain the 
>  dominant and most successful model in the years to come.   Those

Using your methodology would have lead an inhabitant of Pharonic Egypt or
2cd century Rome into error. Using your methodology proved to be a mistake
for the administrators of the Chinese empire, and they had thousands of
years of success to fall back on, not a measly few hundred. Nonetheless, 
it turned out that the old system did not suceed in pacifying the
European colonial powers. 


>>Let's face it, your position boils down to "I'm alright, jack". And what
>>appears to you as "caution" may appear as recklessness to a planetary
>>climatologist or a schoolteacher in the south bronx.
>
>  People are often driven by desperation to extremes.  Their thinking is 
>  that "things are so bad now they can't possibly get worse".  But 
>  anyone who has studied history or done any world travel (I've done
>  both extensively) surely know just how much worse things can get.
>  The *vast* majority of US citizens are living like *kings and queens*
>  by historical or world standards.   

People are often deceived into refusing to see what they don't want to see.
With 30 million americans below the poverty line, "vast" seems like a little
overstatement. One does not have to believe that "things can't get worse" to
demand radical changes. One can also believe that things will certainly get
worse in the absence of those changes. 


>  between environmentalism and our model.  The South Bronx schoolteacher
>  is in a genuinely desperate situation.  But it is unclear WHAT sort
>  of government or economic scheme might address that situation given
>  that many of the problems he faces are due to individual CHOICES that
>  people in his community make (drugs, crime, pregnancy, etc).  If we

This is remarkably ignorant. I suggest that those who grow up in a
neighborhood without civil law, educational or economic opportunities, 
basic services, or adequate nutrition, might not be in the best position
to make choices about which graduate school to attend or whether to go for
an M.B.A. or a M.S. On the other hand, those growing up in sheltered
suburbs, without exposure to the world beyond the malls, might not be able
to develop the moral or intellectual sense needed to distinguish virtue from
good luck. 

>  are going to choose an alternative based on problems like that, what
>  kind should we choose?   Saudi Arabia and Japan both have remarkably
>  low rates of crime and drug abuse.  So if I were chooing a system
>  based on problems like crime and drug abuse I would sooner pick
>  one of those than some of the untried extremist ideas proposed
>  on sci.econ.

Sure, let's take a middle of the road, rational path, like that
of Saudi Arabia. We just need to find a sufficient supply of Sharia law
judges, and some piles of rocks for the stonings. 


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu