From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: If you haven't sent your checks to no-on-hate yet, do it!
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 20:12:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.180640.25706@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, zstewart@nyx.cs.du.edu (Zhahai Stewart) writes:
> In article <1992Sep25.233805.4612@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> >> >I know of no libertarians who make such a claim.  Libertarians will claim
> >> >that a market imposes costs on discrimination... for example, a bus company
> >> >that forces blacks to sit on the back of the bus will lose ridership
> >> >unless the government requires all bus companies to do likewise.
> >  Why, oh why, do people hold onto this starry eyed (tm) belief
> >that if individuals can be reprehensible (which they can) that
> >a goverment comprised of the same individuals will be any better
> >when given a free hand?
> 
> But a marketplace composed of such individuals doesn't suffer from this?
> This is getting silly.

  Yes, but the crucial difference is who has control of power. Given
a group of thugs like the Nazi's in Germany would history have been
the same if they had never been elected to office and allowed to 
legislate their hate on a massive basis? If a large enough gang of
them got together (with no governmental help/collusion), I could 
see anarchy and general lawlessness but the Third Reich? I seriously 
doubt it. 
  People, for better or worse, tend to give their leaders credence
when none may in fact be due. Without the veil of respectability
(and "legitimacy") that governmental power  affords, thugs remain
just that. In the general scheme of things most people are not
leaders, they are followers. The veil of respectability that a
government provides gives the necessary rationalization for most
people to do the unthinkable -- to not rock the boat.
  This is why it has to be asked whether putting to much power
in the hands of *anybody* is a wise idea. Noble cause or not,
power is a corrupting influence. History has shown only a few
instances of anything good coming of this arrangement and literally
hundreds of examples to the contrary.
  Why take the chance?

> I would say that the synthesis (partially regulated capitalist state) has
> clearly won the ideological battle; hard core free-marketeers were defeated
> over fifty years ago (Libertarians are a fossil species, one of several), 
> and hard core state-socialists have been defeated in the past few years (there
> will be fossil Communists 50 years from now, remarkably similar to Libertarians
> in form tho not in content).  

  No. The synthesis is the political residue of an *unfinished* ideological
battle. The ideological battle is not now, or probably ever, done. They
are two generally competing aspects of human society: who has control
of whom and why. For the libs, the control issue is simple: you have
control of yourself and nobody else. For the others, you do not have
complete control of yourself and may (dependant on system) have 
some control on others. The question of self ownership is a basic
one and is not likely to go away. Your analogy with fossils is totally
without basis.
  The mixed economy is just that: mixed. It is not a synthesis, it is
a mixture of mutually contradictory premises from "both" camps (in 
reality, there are many camps which are typically broken up as to
what particular mixture of liberty and authority they think is best,
the demopublicans are a good example of this phenomenon).

> Note that (1) the free market ideology bit the
> dust first, and (2) it was the synthesis or hybrid which then defeated the
> state-socialists, not the free markets. 

  Um, no. Perhaps you are forgetting the Renaissance which was the
spectacular defeat of state authority (beit in a church form or otherwise;
authority is still authority, regardless of how it's justified).
  If you could make any observation, it might be that these things
seem to be cyclic but I don't think that would be a very elucidating 
observation.

> That is, pure free market concepts 
> did not win over state-socialism; instead the same hybrid which beat out
> the pure free market idea also beat out the pure socialist idea.  Free market
> advocates are sadly mistaken to take the defeat of Eastern Europe as a signal
> that their own long-vanquished cause is going to prosper!  As a friend of mine
> who travelled in a number of Eastern European countries just before the big
> collapse said "they don't want to become like the US, they want to become like
> Sweden" - a rich  and very democratic social welfare state.  

  You are correct in saying that pure free market concepts did not
win over pure socialist thought. I don't know of any reasonable person
who would make such a specious claim. Eastern Europe if anything
is a vacuum of ideology, and it is by no means clear what will happen.
Some will fall back into other forms of authority (rightwing 
nationalistic most likely) and some may drag themselves out of 
the morass. This does not mean that the ideas are unto themselves
impotent, it only means that they will probably not be carried
to any large extent to one extreme or the other. The ones who
carry freedom to farthest extent will be the ones who are most
likely to succeed (albeit outside influences don't even make a
very good government any guarantee).
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:6320 soc.motss:41451 soc.bi:13325