From: pjs@world.std.com (Paul J Schmidt)
Subject: Re: The economics of morality
Organization: Advocates for Self-Government - Davy Crockett Chapter
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:45:48 GMT

This is a very good post, Carl, even though I disagree with some of 
your points.  I commend you for your rational, well stated arguments.

lion@netcom.com (carl loeber) writes:
: 
: And yes I believe that morality, values, is the basic of economics
: since it is about 'what is of worth' to economic actors ultimately.

Good!  We agree that morallity is important.
: 
: [...] Deleted basic assumptions
:
: 1) we say that we each have a right to a share of the natural
: resources, and the social resources (unique factors which our being
: a society creates, such as [if we specialize and trade] a market)
: which our society controls,
: 
: 2) to use for production and livelihood (the sustenance of our
: lives.)
: 
I want people to lead happy productive lives.  When you are suggesting a
new concept, as you are, you need to decide if it meets several
conditions.  First - is it moral.  You have answered this question well.
Second - will it work.  I have not seen how you propose to implement
your suggestion in society.  Communism is a moral philosophy (I believe)
but in reality it leads to a totalitarian government, where the people
under such a government suffer.  Communism is a good idea - but
unworkable - "Utopia is not an option."

: then:
: 
: 1) one family (economic unit) cannot control (own) more of a
: resource than is needed for their own sustenance, if that resource
: is limited, increate, and vital. (such as generally land, air,
: water, perhaps even space in the economy)

Who decides what is the basic needs?  How are these resources going to
be redistributed?  Who is going to do the redistribution?  Who will
decide what land will be siezed for redistribution?
: 
: 2) if one of us in society is much more efficient at production,
: and we as a society do agree to allow this one actor to control
: more than he needs personally, of a limited, vital, increate,
: resource, then we ask that he share justly part of that production
: which some others in the society will then be lacking.

I assume that when you said "ask" you meant "forced" by the majority.
If I am wrong, then please accept my appologies for misinterpretting
your post.  I do not assum the economy as a zero sum game.  For me, it 
is fairly obvious that increased production does not deprive other parts
of society, as you suggest.  If we look at our standard of living over a
long period, (100 years, 200 years) it has increased enormously.
Nations with little natural resources, such as Japan, which lacks the
limitted resource of land, have prospered, being an example that
production capacity does not derive mainly from natural resources.  I
believe that the standard of living increases from human creativity and
deterring production by forced redistribution inhibits the capacity for
increases in standards of living.
: 
: 3) ditto if we agree to allow and to charter the creation by our
: law an unnatural, impersonal, legal entity (a corporation, or joint
: stock company) to control part of our limited resources. (on which
: we depend for the basis of our life, liberty, and pursuit of
: happiness)

Who is the "we"?  Is it the majority?  Is it done by consensus?
: 
: By equal rights, of course I mean political equality, and the right
: to the common ground of life.

What is political equality and how do you suggest it be enforced?
: 
: Another example of the other type of resource, the social resource,
: is a safe, and protected social environment, made possible by such
: things as the police, and the military.

Who decides what is a "safe, and protected social environment?"  Is it
the majority?  Do minorities lose their rights?
: 
: The first type of good, personally created, is not required to be
: redistributed by our free society, not on the initial order of
: morality.  
: 
: The second, the resources, if limited, need to be rationed, so that
: all have sufficient if possible.  

There is some problems with rationing.  First, who will be in charge of
deciding what is "fair" rationing?  Does each person get the same amount
of farm, industrial, and residential property?  What happens to this
land when he dies?  Where does the land come from when someone is born?
How do you measure the quality and value of land without a market?  (The
land assessors office would be highly prone to corruption.  Those who
bribe him with the most will get an acre of prime midwest farm land
instead of an acre of rocky, hilly farmland in Vermont.

The possible implementations that I can think of will encourage two
things that I think are a negative to society and would think that a
free market in natural resources is a much better solution.  (1)
POPULATION.  Larger families would control more land (or would in the
future as the children married and had children.)  This would encourage
those who just wanted to live off the profits of renting the land to
have many children, and as early as possible to increase their families
wealth.  (2)  POLLUTION.  If someone dies and their land returns to the
corporation or governmental agency that rations out land rather than
going to their children then they have no care of it's condition.  They
will strip mine, if their land contains ore, cut the trees down for
lumber, farm with methods that will lose top soil and nutrients, etc.
In your system, there would need to be a MASSIVE regulatory agency to
protect against abuses, with the power to enforce its regulations to the
betterment of society (the majority?)
: 
: If however, for some reason, we do not ration the necessary
: resources, then we shall distribute the resulting production in an
: amount sufficient.  (It is clear that we do not ration resources,
: except for some like water, and air.  Historically, society has
: allowed, and [how often?] by political inequity, promoted,
: centralized private control of resources; especially now by
: corporations.)

This would make more sense.  It gets away from some of the problems, but
the problems with the system don't totally disappear.  This would say
that each person (when they were born? got married? had children?) would
be paid a certain amount.  The population problem I talked about will
still exist.  Those who are bad at being financially responsible will be
tempted to have children just to get the ration money.  Or, if money is
only distributed at marriage, punish those that remain single, and
encourage marriages at an early age.  

Ultimatley, any system of distribution will be unfair to some small 
group of people.  Who will choose the redistribution, and what moral
authority would they call on to be "fair."  (To be unfair to a group, 
just because they are a minority, has no moral justification.)  If I
have missed a system of fair redistribution, which does not rely on
force, or majority rule, I will be glad to agree that your system is
moral, AND will work.  Right now, though, I think it sounds great in
theory, but in practice, it would lead to large powerful government
entities that would run portions of our lives.
-- 
Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, uunet!tijc02!pjs269
"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report