From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Capitalism, Population and other matters
Date: 22 Jan 93 20:47:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Perry Metzger writes:
>>What happens if you get struck by cancer and die of it? Life isn't
>>fair, Chris. Not every problem can be solved. Utopia isn't possible.

Mr. Charley writes:
>Hmmm...a Social Darwinist declaring life unfair.  Can you smell an oxymoronic
>situation, folks?  (sorry for the sniping tone, but...I'll chat on this point
>later in the article...)


	He never implied he was a Social Darwinist.  Have you stopped to
consider that maybe he thought that fewer people would die under
capitalism than other social systems?

	Consider what he said: Utopia isn't possible.

	Are YOU saying Utopia IS possible?


>>To be more specific, what happens when in spite of hundreds of
>>billions of dollars being spent every year by the government you STILL
>>can't afford to eat? You can't wish certain problems away, Mr. Holt.
>>When you claim that system A has flaws, we must also consider whether
>>those flaws are not in fact worse under system B.
> 
>     Debating between Neo-Stalinist Communism and a mythological version of
>Capitalism based on a rosy version of America in the late 1800's does not do
>the discussion justice.  Other systems which existed around the world BEFORE
>Europeans started their souljourn around the world actually kept their peoples
>well off and in a population balance.  I've yet to see the European system
>variants (and capitalism in particular) do this, indeed they seem to have a
>line about poor people deserving their fate running through them.

	Which other systems?  How did they maintain a "population balance"?
Is a "population balance" desirable?  What is it?

	How happy were people under these other systems?  What kind of
lives did they lead?


>>Your argument would have a certain degree of validity of government
>>actually could fix poverty, but since it can't, arguing that a few
>>people are poor under capitalism and capitalism is therefore bad seems
>>specious when you consider how many more are starving under socialism.
> 
>     As long as you look merely at eco-political systems, you're right.  There
>ARE other forces which make their effects knows ALONGSIDE the eco-political
>world.

	What the hell are you talking about?


>>In 1800, the standard of living in the US was astonishingly low
>>compared to where it is now. Somehow, though, the crime rate was also
>>much lower.
> 
>     You wouldn't believe how rich the yoeman of 1800 was.  He had his source
>of food complete with some control over how it came about (the farm), he had
>twin sources of social and cultural stimulation (the church and the pub), a
>rock-steady set of expectations and rewards for belonging in a society which
>helped him to develope the ways he could (note that I didn't say spoon-fed him
>everything he wanted), and a government which went as far as it could in
>protecting his investment and didn't NEED to try to create a society.  I see
>none of this (especially the society aspect) going on today.

	Are you saying there are no churches or pubs?  That people have no
control over their lives?

	Why should there be "rock-steady set of expectations and rewards"?
Why is this necessarily the great good you make of it?


>>Well, lets consider the difference. The literacy rate was actually
>>higher in the US before public education. Its a dirty little secret,
>>but it isn't hard to find the statistics. Looks like the experiment
>>has been run, Mr. Holt, and its been a failure.
> 
>     America was founded with the IDEA that its citizens should be educated and
>that the education should be public wherever necessary.  The township concept
>of political division in most of the US was set up with land set aside for
>schools funded publically.  The decline in American public education can be
>explained by a combination of factors:  Expansion of school district size
>beyond optimum sizes (X<100 K-12, IMHO), the resultant shift from local control
>to bureaucratic control, and economic inequalities (Ever notice that students
>in rich neighborhoods have the choice between good public schools and good
>private schools?  I have...).

	The idea was that education should be generally available, but
not that the government should necessarily provide it.  You are generally
right about the problems of government education, but what is your
solution?  Government education appears to suffer from the problems of
monopoly.  Are you saying that all we have to do is redistribute wealth
or get rid of the DOE and everything will be okay?


>>If you lose your job in Singapore, you are shit out of luck, but somehow
>>they don't have riots, do they.
> 
>     Singapore has a highly restrictive society, one in which political
>opression (sorry if the Objectivists have trouble understanding this term,
>since according to Rand political repression cannot happen--only economic
>opression) is a daily way of life.

	Huh?  You've completely lost me here.  I'm not a Randian, but I
am familliar enough with her philosophy to know that she would clearly
not have supported Singapore's "political oppression".

	Are you *really* an ex-objectivist.  It doesn't seem to me that
you ever really understood it.


>They also have mandatory military service. 

	So?  Are you saying that all capitalistic societies would have that?


>Hardly the "free society" you wish to dream about--unless your viewpoint of
>rights and freedoms is limited to "the right to make as much money as I can get
>my grubby hands on."

	Has anyone here said that Singapore was such a great society for
personal freedoms?  I know it is repressive.  But I also know that its
economy is on the right track.

	BTW, what is wrong with the right to make money?  I want more
rights than that, but I ALSO want that right.  I also give money to
charities that I think are worthwhile.  Gee, I guess I am just a
horrible, greedy person.


>     And as for the subject of Social Darwinism:  Imbedded (sp?) in Ayn's
>writings is the idea of Social Darwinism--that one gets what one deserves, and
>any system which gets in the way of this is wrong.

	This is false.  You haven't a clue as to what you are talking about.
If people act irrationally, then I suppose they should get what they deserve.
But that is a REASON to act rationally!  It is a reason to mend your ways.
If you were to sit down and hold your breath demanding a million dollars
or you would die of oxygen deprivation -- guess what -- I'd let you die.
What kind of fool would you think I was?  But if you were the victim of some
kind of freak accident and needed help paying the medical bills, I would
probably donate some money, and feel good about it.

	I don't suppose you realize that Ayn Rand was not totally against
charity or aid in emergencies.  No, I didn't think so.


>  I could rail on the
>evilness of this concept, but for now I will merely comment that S.D. is
>mistaken in its assumption of intent in natural systems.  Wealth, fame, and
>happiness do not come to those who deserve it, but to those who can handle it
>(or the dehumiliation necessary to become wealthy/famous).

	Those who can handle it (and have earned it) do deserve it.
What is your point?


>Final personal opinion note:  Given the 5.5+ billions of people on planet
>earth, I will admit that the choices are capitalism and communism/socialism;
>and that capitalism is the only choice.  However, I believe that any population
>over 1/2 billion is wrong for Planet earth, and therefore Capitalism is wrong
>by the need of a large population for Capitalism's existance.  Therefore,
>capitalism is by necessity wrong.

	Alright, I'll bite.  WHY is a population over 1/2 billion wrong
for Planet Earth?  Is it wrong for humankind on Planet Earth?  Why do
you claim that Capitalism "needs" such a large population?

	Are you an environmentalist?  Is that your beef?


>-----
>Kamchatka Charlie          KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu
>EX-objectivist, and glad of it.
-You never were, apparently.


Mark Sulkowski
temporarily defending objectivism
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism