From: nelson_p@APOLLO.HP.COM
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Wage Slavery (Was: BIG LIE about the market)
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:42:05 GMT


From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)

>>  Nevertheless there is nothing to stop, Amherst, say, from 
>>  selling all the roads to private interests.  Or from making
>
>state law.

  This would only affect the state highways.  And even that 
  could probably be overcome with Weld in office -- he proposed
  privatizing the Mass Pike (Route 90) recently.

>>  it.   Amherst is a relatively affluent town, with a relatively
>>  small proportion of poor (nationally about 16% of the population
>>  is below the poverty line - it's probably less in Amherst).  So
>>  they could vote in some kind of government health insurance
>>  for their citizens.
>
>Ha. There is no way to avoid deadly free-rider problems here.

  Why?  They could require x-many years of residence to qualify.

>Even statewide, we face the  problem of "live free or die" New
>Hampshirites taking social services when times are bad, and retreating
>to their tax haven when times are good.

  Not to mention Mass. residents (like me) who shop in NH to avoid
  the Mass. sales tax.  There's no way to fix this except world
  government, which ain't gonna happen.   Besides, if there are
  genuine economic advantages to providing social, medical and
  other services then this should be an *advantage* in attracting
  business and investment.   But, again, there's nothing to stop 
  one from implementing long residency requirements, as long as one
  does not do so under the aegis of a federal program like AFDC.
  My mother in Sarasota, Florida gets a break on taxes under a 
  "homesteading" law based on being a long-time resident.  This
  is perfectly legal.  


>As such mechanisms as GATT and free-trade agreements expand, the political
>rights of citizens of continues to recede worldwide. In our system,
>localities must compete for the favor of those with capital. Localities
>which chose not to compete, will do as well as individuals who chose not
>to beg for work. 

  What's the alternative?


>Note that "propertarian" experiments are far more within the realm of
>possibility than "communitarian" experiments. Schools can be privatized, but
>factories cannot be given to worker cooperatives.

  Why not?  The owners can do whatever they want with their
  factory.  And there are plenty of businesses that *have* been
  acquired by their workers, i.e., the workers or union have 
  bought out the nmanagement.    And, of course, the government
  can certainly tax the owners out of existence, then acquire
  the property and start a new factory. 


> The local government
>can abandon its parks, but will face legal nightmares if it attempts to
>abandon the costs of servicing new developments. In an era where 
>local governments are scrapping around for the money to snow-plow the
>roads, it is ridiculous to suppose that there is capital for a 
>community investment bank or universal health coverage.

  In Massachusetts all that is required to raise such money is the
  will to do so by voters -- i.e., an over-ride of Proposition
  2 1/2.   We did just that here to raise more money for our
  school system, so it *can* be done.  
 


>the result of nothing but mysterious social choices by odd ethnic
>groups are invited to support legislation banning housing subsidies to
>the middle class. 

  Correct.  As I have been quite outspoken in my comments about
  the mortgage interest deduction: the biggest example of welfare
  for the well-off this country has ever seen.

---peter