From: gleeson@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Red Mountain)
Subject: Re: The Lam philosophy 
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 12:55:06 GMT

In <dyfl.724650940@phobos> dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam) writes:
>gleeson@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Red Mountain) writes:
>>Well done Daniel! You got my point. Half of it, at least. When most of the
>>people are in a poverty trap, they don't have buying power to influence
>>market forces, and, more importantly, they do not have the ability to 
>>exercise their preferences because of their diminished power due to 
>>the inequalities of the anarchist economic system. 

>Who will fall into this poverty trap?  How many people?  It is my
>contention that interventionist policies result in greater poverty,
>rather than amerliorate it.

Yes, it is your contention, and you have yet to support it with _any_
evidence whatsoever, while blithely ignoring the facts that since
"interventionist" policies have been in place, less and less people live in 
poverty. And this is apart from my point which you did not answer, which was
that people who are rich would be the ones with influence over market forces,
and the poor would have diminishingly small influence.

[ Joe Bloggs minimum wage story deleted ]

>Minimum wage laws fixing wages above their market levels lead to an
>imbalance in the supply and demand of labour, and hence insitutional
>unemployment.  They impair production, cause prices to be higher than
>they need be, and arrest investment.

Crap. Minimum wage laws _protect_ poorer workers (who consequently have
negligible influence over market forces, in this case wage rates) from
exploitative employees. They have little effect on prices, because they're
_minimum_ wage laws, and have nothing to do with investment where that 
investment is honest and not just concerned with making a quick buck
at the expense of other human beings.

>Minimum wage laws can, at best, only benefit a small group of workers
>at the expense of other workers.  The widespread fixing of wages
>about their potential market rates can only lead to economic
>depression.

Where on earth do you get this from? Minimum wage laws can, at worst, benefit
a _not-trivial_ group of workers, and only at the expense of employers'
greed. At best, they provide a basis for further negotiation between 
workers and employers, and in many situations, this scenario couldn't be 
further from what actually happens. Your "potential market rates" are those 
decided by rich employers, the ones with the influence over the market, not 
the workers or the consumers, who have no power over those "potential market 
rates", or do not participate in that particular "market".
In a _fair_ democratic system, where every person gets one and only one vote,
I think you would find that those "potential market rates" would be quite
different to what you seem to hope they would be. Hey, I'll even give you
an example. How about Australia, Present Day. We, the members of society
(the market) have decided (market forces) that there should be a minimum
wage. So there is a minimum wage in Australia. But it looks like your buddies
in the Anar^H^H^H^H Liberal Party would like to lower it, because like
you, they feel that market forces would like it lowered. Unfortunately
they suffer the same blindness as you in overlooking the fact that we
Australians (THE MARKET) have decided otherwise ("MARKET FORCES" at work).

>Your "case study" of Joe Bloggs is most heart-wrenching indeed.  Let
>us help him by forcing his employer to pay him $100 an hour.  Sure
>that would work, wouldn't it?

Well done, Daniel. You have shown how childish and stupid your arguments
really are.

>>You haven't been shouted down, and there is no way you can say that there
>>was less poverty in the Industrial Revolution era than there is now.

>When did I ever say that?  The improvement we have witnessed since
>the I.R. is largely the achievement of capitalism.  

The improvement we have witnessed since the Industrial Revolution is wholly
the achievement  of _regulated_ capitalism. Or, in your own words, 
interventionist policies.

>                                                   What caused
>poverty to be relieved was capital accumulation and investment, not
>government intervention.  I do argue that had there not been a
>deviation, or as great a deviation from lassiez-faire policies, there
>would be even less poverty.

You are fantasising that there would be even less poverty. Human nature has
shown time and time again that in an economic and social system of no
control whatsoever, as you are proposing, people _will_ be exploited and 
oppressed. Are you trying to say that this won't happen?

>>Just because some of the poor were able to earn a little more money
>>doesn't help your case any. What about the children forced into
>>labour? What about the rich getting a lot richer at the expense of
>>others? Most of the world had pure capitalist economic systems before 
>>and during the Industrial Revolution. The world did not see equality
>>addressed or opression and exploitation attacked until society decided 
>>that government was the way to acheive it.

>The children were forced into labour by the fact of poverty.  There
>was simply no way they could survive otherwise; there was not enough
>wealth.  Whereas before they would have died (in peaceful
>tranquility, as the eulogists of the Middle Ages would say) in abject
>poverty with no prospects of improvement without anybody noticing,
>they now worked long hours in terrible conditions just to stay
>alive.  I agree this was a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, but
>to imagine that all that was needed to improve conditions was
>compassion and a willingness to use the state is to believe in
>magic.

Sorry, you miss the point there also. Children were forced into labour
because it wasn't illegal, simply because employers were _allowed_ to put 
them to work. They were in such abject poverty in the first place because 
there were no minimum wage laws. Then more than ever, almost all the wealth 
in the world was in the hands of very few people. To use the state was to 
believe in magic? Well, it sure looks like the magic worked.

>It is true the rich got a lot richer, but not true that they did so
>at the expense of others.  The poor, too, got richer.  Emasculating
>the wealth of the rich would not, in the long run, have helped the
>poor one bit and would in fact have led to even greater
>impoverishment.

Mighty sweeping statements (the last one mainly. The first two are patently
false). Any shred of fact to support them? At all?

>I'm astounded you could think that most of the world had pure
>capitalist economic systems before and during the I.R.  Medieval
>Europe certainly was not capitalist.  Means of production were
>largely not in private ownershp.  True, there were landlords who
>wielded great power.  But they did not own the land in the full sense
>of the word.  They were bound to their subjects and to the land with
>customary obligations.  It was impossible or extremely difficult for
>them to sell their lands.  Going futher back, there were
>well-developed markets in the Roman Empire during the Antonine era,
>and you can argue that it was partially capitalistic.  But it was not
>until the eighteenth century that people started to understand the
>operation of markets.  It was the discoveries of the classical
>economists that led in Britain to the demoliton of age-old and
>well-respected customs and restrictions which had hampered the
>market.  Without this knowledge you may stumble upon capitalism, but
>it would not be lasting.  When the emperor Diocletian attempted to
>improve the ailing Roman economy by imposing price controls and other
>restrictions and was baffled by the failure of his edicts to achieve
>what he wanted, he could be forgiven for nobody had told him of the
>consequences of intervention.  The modern interentionists have no
>such excuses.
>That's Europe.  As for the rest of the world, where exactly are you
>talking about?  There were markets in China, but there was no
>long-term capital accumulation.  Where else did we have pure
>capitalism?

You have failed to understand the ramifications of your own belief system in
regards to anarchy and pure capitalism. If anarchy is to run free, then any
totalitarian or autocratic regime that takes control is simply a result of 
your market forces. The examples you cite above, though some are incomplete 
and at least one incorrect, have been a result of those wonderful market
forces. You advocate capitalism and anarchy as a solution to poverty, but
in _reality_ (may be a new concept), a system of capitalism and anarchy is 
an open invitation for anyone to do whatever they damn well please, and
too bad to whoever suffers the consequences. Quite a while ago society
decided that the human price that would be paid in the centuries it would 
take for "market forces" to produce a fair system (if it ever did, which is
more doubtful than not) would be much too high. A system of "intervention",
as you call it, is society's attempt (and the rest of the population
besides you, Daniel, think it is a fairly good one, aeons better than
anarchy, anyhow) at trying to achieve the sort of system that _might_
arise from a pure capitalist system, if everybody was as fair as the 
idealists would have us believe they are, but without the cost in human 
life and hardship.

What you want, Daniel, is to be able to get rich quick, and ignore anyone
who needs to suffer so you can achieve your goal, have nobody touch a cent 
of your wealth, and make sure the poor stay in their place. If this is not
your fond wish, then why do you advocate a system that would _encourage_
this sort of thing? I seem to recall you failing to answer in a previous
post whether or not you _wanted_ to see injustice, exploitation and 
oppression... Please clarify this for us now. And if your answer is no, 
then pray tell how you can reconcile this with your anarcho-capitalist
stance.

Martin.
---------------------=============***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***=============-------------------------