From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Subject: Re: Transport subsidies - Was: Car Parking
Date: 18 Dec 92 13:11:30 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <29705@castle.ed.ac.uk> fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:
>smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:
>
>>I'm going to have to start winding this down in preparation for news
>>being inaccessible (to me) over the Christmas period, but...  Consider
>>this my parting shot.  
>
>OK Paul, I figure it's gone as far as it's likely to anyway, and I'm
>missing meals to keep up here. Have a good xmas/solstice/holiday.

And you.  I tend by upbringing to lean towards the Xmas-y solution, but
I've got enough friends who believe in other mythologies not to be rabid
about it.  However, I lied (a little) in that I sort of feel I should at
least answer the couple of direct questions/challenges in here.  Consider
it a denouement, and an invitation to a sequel next month.

>I'd also advocate that parking charges reach their market rate...

Hey, a point of agreement.

>>Why should I sell?  Either you will pay me, or you'll leave -- in which
>>case, I can probably buy up the town centre at a song, for future
>>development.
>
>That's capitalism. I have no argument with it.

I have some argument -- this is one I'd like to pick up in January, so
just think of this as advance warning, to let you polish your guns.
Here's the direction I would argue in (and will, if you like, next
month).  What is this 'free market'?  Well, it is a democratic method
for determining what society (which you can't escape from without
moving) will do in order to maximise its total advantage.  The
participants vote for their preferences using money; the number of
votes you get is directly proportional to the number of beer tokens you
have in your pocket.  As such, it is no different to the current
situation, except that at present the number of votes you get is
directly proportional to whether you are alive or not.  (Except in
Chicago, where dead people get to vote as well. :-)

If you do not have sufficient beer tokens, then you still do not have
freedom of choice, as only those possibilities which attracted
sufficient beer tokens will even be on offer.  Thus, the only real
difference between your approach and mine is the determination of
precisely which group of people will have their freedom of choice
infringed upon.  I can accept that your approach is consistent and
logical.  However, I can't accept that it is 'right' in either moral or
utilitarian terms, and I believe mine is equally consistent and
logical.

Now, our household has lots of beer tokens going spare.  I am certain
that under your system I would be financially better off; indeed, I am
a financial loser under most of the political or economic scenarios
which I argue for.  I don't know your financial position, but given
that we are on a healthy multiple of average family (or even, average
academic family) income, no dependents and guaranteed to stay that way,
and own most of our house, it's reasonably likely that my solution
gives you a financial advantage over me, and that yours gives me an
advantage over you.  Whichever, my personal experience leads me to
believe that it is a mistake to confuse monetary maxima with value
or utility maxima.

My general stance is that a mixed system is best.  I believe that for
things which are necessities of life (which is another area which can
be argued, but I'd include a certain level of mobility) per-person
voting is preferable; while for things which are clearly 'luxuries',
per-beer-token works very well.  In any particular instance, the ease
of breaking into the business -- i.e. the likelihood that monopoly or
oligopoly conditions will or will not apply -- also influences my
choice.  Thus, I have no real problem with a generally free-market
approach towards food - with caveats.

I'll hang onto this posting, and if you'd like I'll repost it in
January and we can bat it around a bit.

>>Might work, when/if there is a choice of route.  In many cases there is
>>not, and, worse, cannot be.
>
>Where?

In local trips.  The more local, the less likely that true alternatives
are possible.  E.g, in the limiting case, there's only one reasonable
way to get from my house to the one next door.  However, I suspect most
traffic is on relatively shorter trips.  The longer the distance
involved, the less uncomfortable I get about private roads.

>Answer this question then: You are really saying that if people won't
>pay the road toll, they're imprisoned, and this is bad. Why then is it
>ok by you that folks can be imprisoned for not paying the toll (tax)
>levied by a government. You are being at least inconsistent here.

One of the things people are best at is being inconsistent.  However,
in simple terms (and with reference to our forthcoming January
engagement) I am less uncomfortable with imprisonment imposed by a
system in which votes are determined by existence than by a system in
which votes are determined by beer tokens.  Imprisonment is, however,
really another argument, in that I believe it is used much too often in
any case, in this country.  (We can have this one too, if you like,
though I have a suspicion we might agree on it.)  However, that's not
an intrinsic fault of per-person voting; indeed, I suspect it is
traceable back to the days when the more you owned, the more power you
had, and I suspect (but won't assert and can't prove) that you'd find
that the countries which do better are precisely those with a longer
history of 'republican' style government.

>Libertarianism is not simply economic conservatism, it's about people's
>rights. You still have rights to property even if you don't have money.

Those rights are hollow if you don't have the money, since you can't
have any property (except life) to have rights to without the money,
and you can't even maintain that property without money to buy more in
the form of food.

>I've shown how libertarianism would avoid slavery, and I've shown that
>the system you advocate mandates it. You hinted that you didn't approve
>of slavery. Either renounce that disaproval or renounce the systme you
>advocate which involves it.

No, you asserted it would avoid it.  I believe I have shown how
libertarianism can lead to it.  Again, we can continue this argument if
you like, but I don't believe slavery can be unjustified or eliminated
by any existing economic system.  You have to step outside.

>>It doesn't surprise me that you can find ways in which the
>>(im)moralities match. 
>
>They don't. See above.

Since it's Christmas, 'Oh yes they do'. :-)

>And that's what your solution really amounts to. You can be down and out
>with no freedom to trade or you can be a slave for some of the time. I

True.  Same as yours.

>Agreed. That's why I'm a libertarian rather than an anarchist. Please
>don't confuse the two.

Intriguing.  I'm a theoretical anarchist in that I consider it an ideal
ultimate solution, but I don't believe it can work practically until
evolution provides people with a stronger inbuilt sense of social
responsibility.  Hence, I end up arguing in other directions.  (I could
probably even accept libertarianism as an intermediate step, but again
not at our current state of evolution.  Ask me again in another 5000
years. :-)

>Indeed. I think we can be reasonably sure that we agree that getting rid
>of this particular government would be a good place to start.

I'd CERTAINLY like that.  (Suspect we could argue for quite some time
about who to replace it with, though.)

>Happy Solstice

And you...

-- 
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
 P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk - ..!uunet!uknet!bsmail!p.smee - Tel +44 272 303132