From: pjs@world.std.com (Paul J Schmidt)
Subject: Re: The economics of morality
Organization: Advocates for Self-Government - Davy Crockett Chapter
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:06:46 GMT

Carl,
Thank you for your well thought out response.  It is refreshing to see
someone who takes time to reply in a thoughtful manner.

lion@netcom.com (carl loeber) writes:
: 
: I have not tried to make it work here, but have elsewhere devoted
: some space to that.
: 
: Nevertheless, I think you for one, proceed with the faith, we might
: say that, if it is moral (that is, correct) it will work.
: 
What I was trying to write is that an {idea is good if it is both
moral and practical.  There are ideas that are immoral but practical and
ideas that are moral but impractical.  The idea of rationing limitted
resources, I believe falls into the latter.  Letting the free market
distribute limitted resources is the most moral of the practical ways I
know.
: 
: No problem.  You are right though, that a social order depends on
: force or treat of force, as well as social conscience, and social
: cohesion.
: 
: I like to say to my friend from Montana that he can leave the
: society anytime he chooses.  (He chooses quite often.)  This is
: what is so correct, in my opinion, about the federal system, that
: there be many different types of goverment administration, and
: societies from which to choose.  And within that diversity you will
: choose the one that suits you best, as well as the one which you
: make the best for yourself.
: 
: Because the unit is closer at hand you can have more effect, to
: control it and make it what you and your neighbors want it to be.

My understanding of what you wrote is that local communities would be
able to decide what laws to make.  These local communities could then
decide to adopt your proposal.  If that is what you said I feel more
comfortable about what you are saying.
: 
: 
: 
: Right an economy is dynamic and interactive.  But arable farm land
: is also finite.  If Texeco decides to operate a few hundred
: thousand acres of it, there is that much less available to would-be
: independent farm families.  For all the legal precedents, Texeco is
: not a living breathing human, it's form is the creation of a legal
: system empowered by a social order.
: 
Why does it make a difference if large companies run farms or small?  If
the market would favor large companies rather than small companies, why
would you want to adopt a policy counter to reality?  In China, they
have more employment since they have people, painstakingly out tending
each rice patty by hand.  They have sacraficed raises of standards of
living for favoring an ideal.

Why do you say Texaco is not a living breathing human?  It is a group of
stockholders including widows, retirees, and parents investing for their
childs educaiton.

: The question is whether each person in the society has a right to
: use the necessary resources which that society controls, to produce
: what he needs to sustain his life.
: 
: I assume that you agree each has that right.

Society doesn't control resources -- individuals do.
: 
: Second,  I am not speaking of anything, right now, except what is
: moral.  Are you saying that there is no just liability for the
: inclusion of each member in a society in the economy of life?  

I think every person has a moral obligation to other members of society.
To say that someone, without their consent, is liable for another person
makes them into a (partial) slave.  Slavery is immoral.
: 
:  
: : The first type of good, personally created, is not required to be
: : redistributed by our free society, not on the initial order of :
: morality.  
: : 
: : The second, the resources, if limited, need to be rationed, so
: that : all have sufficient if possible.  
: 
: There is some problems with rationing.  First, who will be in
: charge of deciding what is "fair" rationing?  Does each person get
: the same amount of farm, industrial, and residential property? 
: What happens to this land when he dies?  Where does the land come
: from when someone is born? How do you measure the quality and value
: of land without a market?  (The land assessors office would be
: highly prone to corruption.  Those who bribe him with the most will
: get an acre of prime midwest farm land instead of an acre of rocky,
: hilly farmland in Vermont.
: 
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^[end copy]^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: Rationing is merely a way of describing the principle.
: 
: Solutions are to be found from an improved function of democratic
: institutions.
: 
: We are talking principles here.   
: 
: I do like to discuss applications.

I think you are talking about moral principles.  But I know of no way 
that your principles could be implemented without causing much hardship
and suffering.  I know that we both agree that this is something we both
want to avoid.
: 
: Do you have any big problems with the "socialized" distribution of
: water by our democratically operated local water systems in
: municipal and agricultural districts?  (I don't like the federally
: tax subsidized system, which started fine to serve family farms of
: the homestead variety, but now is largely, I presume, still usurped
: by corporate farm lobbyists.)

I don't know about agricultural districts.  The first public water
system was a fiasco.  I can dig up the article if you are interested.
The problem was that the municipalities government was not qualified to
decide how to build the system and listened to a good salesman rather
than a good engineer.  The system was a white elephant.  It went passed
schedule and went over budget and did not do what it was promised to
do.
: 
: Just try to think theoretically, as if government could mean
: community, or "people".  As in the last line of the Gettysburg
: Address.
: 
: 
: I think I understand your position, born in the mountains and open
: space, whether Tennessee or Montana.
: 
: Have know fear.  I'm one of you.
: 
I do have fear that some politician will repeat what you say.  You speak
intelligently and authoritatively.  If someone were to try to apply your
principles, the result would be, as I already conjectured,
overpopulation, polution, and a facsist government.  If you come up with
a way to get your principle to work, let us know, it could relieve
tremendous suffering.  As an opinion leader, you are encouraging
something which, if adopted, may have the opposite result of which you
intend.  
-- 
Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, uunet!tijc02!pjs269
"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report
Xref: sparky sci.econ:7244 talk.politics.theory:3936