From: jfh@yacht.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Libertarian Social Darwinism
Date: 24 Jan 93 20:01:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: uflorida.38373
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Distribution: inet
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <1ji5p5INN8o@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>In article <ARCHER.826.727474863@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan16.003829.27540@radian.uucp> markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr) writes:
>>>Right. *YOU* try living on minimum wage.
>>
>>I have.  It's not pleasant, but that doesn't mean that the world owes me a 
>>living.
>
>Oh.  In that case, try living on a fraction of it.  After all, libertarians
>don't advocate a minimum wage law.  I hope all those low-wage jobs have
>good health benefits, or that you stay healthy.  After all, the world doesn't
>owe you a living, and if you're too sick to work, well....

Okay, here we go again.

0) The standard of living is measured by how much "stuff" the average
   person has or can obtain, not the nominal wages that person is paid.
   If a person in a free economic society is being paid $3.50 an hour, but can
   afford to buy more stuff as a person in a mixed economic society
   who is being paid $5.50 and hour, the $3.50 has more purchasing power,
   and therefore this person has higher *real* wages, and a higher standard
   of living. The more people work and save, the more can be produced, 
   and the higher the standard of living for all.

1) The price of different types of labor in the market are determined 
   by supply and demand. This means that if you set a price floor
   on wages:

 	a) You price those not worth the wage out of the market, denying
	     them a job at all.
	
	b) The price of the goods and services produced by this type of
 	   labor now go up because there are fewer workers producing
	   the good (fewer goods = higer prices), and the cost of
	   production (wages factored in) has also risen.

	c) This person, in the current system, will probably go on
	   governemnt relief, paid for by taxes, which hurts production
	   further (less production = less stuff = higher prices for stuff).
   
   So now, you have just raised the price of this good for everyone,
   including any poor who might want to buy the product. This action just
   lowered the standard of living for poor who are not on government
   assistence, encouraging them to go onto government assistence, since it
   is easier.

2) Without the minimum wage or social programs, there will be a powerful
   drive to work hard and *think* hard in order to improve your lot.
   The more people there are working, the more stuff is produced, and
   consequently, the price of stuff falls, raising the standard of living
   for all, including the poor.

3) Private charities have always existed--no civilized society has ever let
   people just sit around and die of starvation if they truly cannot work.

4) It all boils down to: does free working of the law of supply and demand
   work to ensure the maximum production of stuff? The answer is: yes.
   If the government would just let the economy alone, supply and demand,
   and competition would ensure the highest productivity possible at the
   time, and a gradual rise in the standard of living for all, including
   the poor.

5) The poor in the more capitalistic societies, even when not on government
   assistence, are better off most in the more socialistic countries.

5) Why don't you go hang out at public housing projects or rent-controlled
   apartments, and see what your "humanitarian" goals have wrought.
   Liberalism, unfortunately, ends up being something you do *to* people,
   not for them.

A side issue, as I have said before, production is the true source of
wealth. The massive, bloated Leviathan state that we have now is almost
*all consumption*!!!!! This means, essentially, that the private sector
is so powerful that it can support the bureucracy (minus national debt,
of course.) If all those people were producing more than paper and laws
which try to control all aspects of an individuals life, think of the 
rise in the standard of living for everyone.

In this situation, think of how many people could afford to buy mass
quantities of the things they nees and want.

I know you fail to understand the viewpoint of those advocating economic
freedom, but we have the best interests of the poor and everyone else
in mind.

>It's Social Darwinist attitudes like that which brought about socialism in
>reaction.

Sorry. Its called *envy*. "Those damned rich can afford all this stuff,
they have all this wealth. Hey! Why can't they spread it around to me.!!

Well, the problem with this short-sighted destructionist line of reasoning
is that the rich *already have* spread the wealth! How do you think they
got rich in the first place? Standing on the side of the road and holding
up people? No! They produced things which the masses wanted to buy.
Rockefeller got rich mostly by proving oil for the common man, oil
previously economically unobtainable (Rockefeller did dabble in politics,
but this is beside this point). So Rockefeller got rich by "spreading the
wealth," trading what he produced for other people's money. This increased
their standard of living. This is how the rich get rich, unless they can
get their hands in the government, an anathema to those who advocate 
a free society.

The more regulations on business there are, the more business will try
to control government, to try and get around them or inflict them on
others. This is not what the advocates of a free society want.

Sure things were lousy back in the nineteenth century. Why? Capitalism
hadn't done its work yet. Capitalism is a gradual increase in the standard
of living for all people. Those who get rich do so by "spreading the
wealth," but it is wealth that others still must earn and produce something
of equal value for it. 

You fall prey to the common economic problem of seeing only what is
immediately visible (those damned rich), and not thinking any further than
this. But the rich have gotten so by raising the standard of living for
others. This is capitalism, this is the best system for everyone, including
the poor.

It's high time you figured this out.

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian