From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: the most equitable economic system
Date: 5 Nov 92 02:20:54 GMT
Organization: Bradley University

w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee) writes:

>dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
>>
>>But really I don't find that as much of a measure of success as I do simply
>>by looking at the opportunity to improve.  Under a capitalist system,
>>nearly everyone has the ability to improve their lot in life.  They can
>>work the land for food or work for others for money.
>
>While working for others for money CAN improve one's lot it life, not
>necessarily will it.  One has to have "gainful" employment, or employment
>paying enough to live on plus enough to save up for a house or business within,
>say, a lifetime to have a stake in the market economy, or even have the
>potential for political freedom within its constraints.  Here in America,
>during the period between the second war to end all wars and the 1982
>depression, there seemed to be some potential for gainful employment to be the
>norm.  But now even survival-level employment is 5 or 6 rungs up the ladder.

I agree that the realities of modern corporate capitalism aren't very fair,
but is it fair to tell a person how to run his own business, or how much
money is 'enough'?  There are greedy people everywhere, but the current
approach to big business assumes that all of them are greedy, which isn't
true.  If gainful employment is 5 rungs up the ladder for some people, is
it fair to bring everyone else down 5 rungs just to make things even?


>>  Messy things like racism and such tend to make the system
>>less fair, and we have all seen how multinational corporations can become
>>defacto governments in themselves.
>
>Not that I've been keeping score, but you seem to be the first advocate of
>capitalism to concede that point.

Well, it's reality, and if capitalism is going to work properly, these
problems need to be addressed.  Like all systems and philosophies, it don't
mean a thing on paper.  It has to work in real life.  That goes as much
for communism, capitalism, libertarianism, statism, ismism....  Part of
making it work it acknowledging the problems and then addressing them.


>>  But I see no need to throw out a
>>perfectly good system simply because of these flaws.
>
>Likewise I see no need to work within a system simply because it's the only one
>successfully tested.

You need not work within the system if you don't want to, though you may
have to at first in order to get a start.  For instance, one may choose to
form a commune society and live off the land.  In today's predominantly 
capitalist economy, however, you may have to buy the land first.  It
wouldn't be right to just steal it, would it?  It's unfortunate, but it's
true.  An economic system is not just something that can develop out of
vapour.  A communist society cannot go straight to a capitalist system and
vice versa because it requires a fundamental change in thinking.


>>  We work to fix the
>>flaws, don't we?  It's not like capitalism is on its last legs and the
>>workers are ready to revolt like Marx warned.
>
>But of course you don't speak for all the workers.

I only speak for myself.  Let the workers speak for themselves.

>>  At the same time, we must always be vigilant to balance
>>the government against the rights of the individual.
>
>If your definition of (rights of the individual) (strictly =) (property rights),
>then there ain't nothing in it for me, and I have no reason to claim
>citizenship in your government.

No.  The right to be secure in one's belongings is only one such individual
right.  The right to speak one's mind, to hold one's thoughts freely
without fear of reprisal, the right to be left alone....  A person may live
more comfortably with property, and I certainly thing owning property is a
valid right, but I do not believe that those who own no property are
worthless.  Whatever prevalent economic system exists should not affect
one's inherent worth.

If, even after this, you have no reason to claim citizenship in such a
government, such is your prerogative.  However, if you do, you of course
give up any claims to its benefits as well.


>>  This does not
>>preclude your idea of an economic system.  However, it does protect those
>>who wish not to participate in it.
>
>You need not worry about that.  I don't aspire to govern, and I don't believe
>in recruiting governments as allies in class struggles.  (In my book:  the
>struggle to escape from social (or "pecking") order.)

In my eyes, a libertarian government is the only type of government that
will protect individual rights, including the right to trade freely, with
little enough intervention to be used as leverage by one class or another.
But that's just my opinion.


>I'm too busy trying to find a way around participating in your economic system.

I wish you luck.

-- 
 davE.  Making the world safe for intelligent dance music.  dave@bradley.edu.
######### David L. Vessell -- Bradley University Computing Services #########
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian