From: dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam)
Subject: Re: The Lam philosophy (was Re: JJJ...)
Organization: Collaborative Information Technology Research Institute
Distribution: aus
Date: 15 Dec 92 06:13:43 GMT

gleeson@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Red Mountain) writes:
>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. 

No exploitation and oppression occurs under laissez-faire.  It is
just a system in which factors of production are employed according
to choices made by consumers rather than by a central government.
The historical myth that capitalism impoverished workers has been
thoroughly debunked.  Capitalism led to tremendous increases in
wealth and everybody got richer.

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

I do not impose my value judgement on others.  I try to convince
people that freedom benefits them.  But if you don't agree, there's
nothing much more I can do.

>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.

Good, they can pay "taxes" then, or whatever you call the wealth
that they give voluntary to welfare agencies.

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

Of course the poor will have more restricted access to educational
services than the rich.  The poor have more restricted access to
everything.  The rich in general eat better ice cream and drive
better cars than the poor.  That's the precise meaning of poor and
rich.  The important point is that in a market economy, you cannot
grow rich by making others poor.  You become rich if you are best
able to produce things and render services which, directly or
indirectly, are highly valued by the consumers, the people who,
directly or indirectly, pay you.  If you take your principle to its
logical conclusion, you should be advocating the outright abolition
of private property.

>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.

Err?

>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.

How does government achieve these things?
--
	Daniel Lam			Phone 	+61 3 2822426
	Melbourne, Australia		Fax   	+61 3 2822490

In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.
Newsgroups: aus.politics