From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:02:00 GMT

In <1992Nov16.225759.4896@cpqhou.compaq.com> thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com (Thomas Rush) writes:

>In article <1992Nov11.035923.16710@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>
>>Pardon me, but I said we should do away with Social Security some time
>>ago.  What I say we shouldn't do is simply chop off all those people
>>who are currently relying on it because they don't have the time to
>>change plans at this point in time (and hence we have to have income
>>from somewhere to enable us to continue to pay those benefits in the
>>short term).  I also don't buy this fallacy that the employee is
>>suddenly going to see the money that the employer has been
>>contributing to the system.

>Ok, we agree on this.  Libertarians have proposed phasing out SS for
>some time now - I saw a proposal recently that was ten or more years
>old.  

The point here, I think, is that most of the 'libertarian in the
street' folks seem to assume they're going to get a 15% raise out of
this.  They neglect the fact that there are some 15-20 years of
'grandfathered' benefits out there that are going to have to be paid
out (and funded) SOMEHOW.

>>> [....]
>>I seem to understand you just fine, judging by what you go on to say.
>>It is also predictable, however, that anyone who tries to point out to
>>a libertarian how their pipe dreams won't work winds up being deluged
>>with personal insult, accused of being a thief, a socialist, etc.
>>Sure works to convince ME you're in the right.  Yep.

>Well, I don't believe I've called anyone on the net a thief.  I've 
>surely not called you a socialist, so do try to keep us libertarians
>straight -- I know we all look alike.

Unfortunately, however, this is quite a common tactic for libertarians
to use -- whether it's the majority that does it or whether it's just
a vocal minority is difficult to tell.  As I've tried to explain to
Mr. Iacoletta, this tends to be counterproductive because people
simply classify it as 'lunatic fringe' and stop listening.  A lesson
that my experience seems to indicate a lot of libertarians need to
learn. 

>>>To clear this up for you, the Libetarian Party believes that the
>>>initiation of force (either overtly or by fraud) is wrong.  We
>>>beilive that government interference in free markets, including tax
>>>policy, incentives, and regulation, are illegitimate uses of
>>>government authority.  It is because of those interferences that
>>>the current markets represent anything _but_ free markets.
>>
>>Tell me something I don't know.  One more time, from the top.  The
>>'free markets' that libertarians extoll have their own distortions
>>because of externalities (both positive and negative) and the ability
>>of 'free riders' to benefit from the postive ones and for consumers to
>>foist the negative ones off on folks who don't get the benefit of
>>consuming the product.

>I'm not claiming that there won't be free riders in a libertarian 
>society -- what I do claim is that our government has shown itself
>to be anywhere from inefficient to fully inept in the social and 
>economic spheres.  Giving that same government the power (and 
>charter!) to try to eliminate ecomomic inequities of a free market
>ensures that, at best, you won't have a free market.  

Well, SOMEBODY has to do it.  You can't simply ignore those market
inequities that will result under a full 'free market' system; it
simply gets ugly too fast.

>Perhaps what bugs me the most, though, is that I see no provision 
>in the Constitution for the federal government to try to minimize
>free riders, or perform any other kind of economic leveling.  Even
>James Earl Carter knew that "Life isn't always fair."

However, it is generally recognized as being a necessary function.
The only argument (from people living in the real world) is over who
should do it and how it should work.  All too many times, one gets
arguments from libertarians that simply seem to assume that things
will 'magically happen'.

>>>>Oh, one thing of note is that absolutely full costing is just about as
>>>>impossible to do as the 'perfect markets' that libertarians assume.
>>>>It is, however, an attempt to move in the right direction.  Hey,
>>>>nothing's perfect; not even a perfect stranger.
>>
>>>We do not assume that today's markets are perfect markets.  If we
>>>did, we would be fighting to keep things just as they are.
>>>Instead, we know that the federal government, in particular, has
>>>created wildly _un_free markets, and we wish to eliminate that
>>>interference, while you seem to think that the same government that
>>>has screwed things up this well can straighten them out with just a
>>>little more regulation.
>>
>>You seem to have missed my point, if you are under the impression that
>>I think that current markets behave as perfect markts and that that is
>>all there is to the point I'm trying to raise.  But you assume that
>>sans regulation, there will BE perfect markets.  That just won't
>>happen, which is why regulation and such arose in the first place.

>Well, I guess this is the real debate -- I think that most regulation
>arose to counteract government interference in the free market, or to
>provide benefits to those with the government's ear.  Example of the
>first: we've just passed a mammoth cable regulation bill that at its
>heart says that we can find what good and competitive cable service is
>by looking at areas where there is cable company competition.  Why isn't
>there more cable competiton?  Because cities all over the country have 
>signed cozy agreements with cable operators giving them monopolies.

This is indeed the point of contention.  Perhaps you need to look into
just why it is that local governments make those kinds of deals, what
the economic forces are that are involved, etc.?

>Example of the second: lets take tobacco subsidies.  We allocate
>tobacco acreage to make sure they don't grow too much.  We pay the
>farmers directly, too. 

Yes, one can point to truly stupid things that ANY group does.  The
point is to not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

>There may never be such a thing as a "perfect market," but I think 
>that the best shot at it is to decrease the amount that the government
>gets to meddle in it.

I don't think that helps.  All you get that way is meddling by the big
players.  Personally, I trust government more than I trust them, just
based on history.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame