From: gleeson@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Red Mountain)
Subject: Re: The Lam philosophy 
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:07:31 GMT

In <dyfl.724557659@phobos> dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam) writes:
>gleeson@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Red Mountain) writes:
>>any choices to affect these magical "market forces".

>Market forces have nothing magical about them.  In fact, the use of
>the term "market forces" has conveyed a false mechanical analogue.
>What are called market forces are not autonomous forces directing
>history, such as Marxists conceive things, but are just expressions
>of the preferences of the people.

Well done Daniel! You got my point. Half of it, at least. When most of the
people are in a poverty trap, they don't have buying power to influence
market forces, and, more importantly, they do not have the ability to 
exercise their preferences because of their diminished power due to 
the inequalities of the anarchist economic system. 

>>Haven't you learnt anything in your 20-odd years on this earth? Or do
>>you want an itemised list? Not that it would do much good, seeing the
>>way you selectively reply to the objections people raise to your system.

>If I were to reply to everything, the number of daily posts would
>grow exponentially.

No, their length may be a little longer, but there would be no need for 
extra ones. Of course, that is if you even have any responses to the
points people have raised.

>Most of the criticisms of me have been of the form: "Your views are
>not accepted by society.  Society has rejected your policies."  Now
>there is no need to remind me that my beliefs are contrary to those
>of the vast majority of people.  I know they are.  I have examined
>the views held by society and I have rejected them.  My contention is
>that the interventionist policies supported by the vast majority of
>people leads to general impoverishment and diminishment of
>happiness.

Well, the OECD thinks you are quite wrong, but as you ahve rejected the views
of billions of other people on this planet, I see no reason that you wouldn't
reject theirs either.

>I am not trying to defy the opinions of society and implement my
>policies even though they are utterly unpopular.  That is impossible,
>and I do not try to do the impossible.  If society wants, say,
>minimum wage laws, it will get minimum wage laws.  All I'm trying to
>do is to convince people that minimum wage laws do not accomplish the
>ends that they are supposed to, viz., improvment in the standard of
>living of the workers.

If Joe Bloggs is getting the minimum wage of (say) $5 per hour for cleaning
toilets, and suddenly Jeff K. (the fictitious premier) decides that there
is no longer a minimum wage, and his employers decide that it would be
better for all concerned if they paid him $4 per hour, then by your 
reasoning, his family's standard of living would not be worse. Note well
that I said _family_. Should he get another, higher paying job? Well, the 
labour market is suffering from 10% unemployment, and as Joe's parents were
poor, they couldn't afford the education required for Joe to get any
qualifications. And as Joe has to support a family, he can't afford any
training, which of course, his company won't provide, as it would cut into 
profits. And should his family starve while he's looking for a job? 
Remember, with no government, there's no unemployment benefits, and
because he was on the minimum wage, he can't afford unemployment insurance,
especially when the company deems him to be working in a "high risk"
occupation...

>One last point.  People on this list, in the opinions they have
>expressed on the history of the Industrail Revolution, seem to have
>been exposed to only one historiographical tradition.  I have been
>shouted down for even suggesting that the view that the Industrialist
>Revolution led to widespread poverty is false.  This is sad indeed.

You haven't been shouted down, and there is no way you can say that there
was less poverty in the Industrial Revolution era than there is now.

Just because some of the poor were able to earn a little more money
doesn't help your case any. What about the children forced into
labour? What about the rich getting a lot richer at the expense of
others? Most of the world had pure capitalist economic systems before 
and during the Industrial Revolution. The world did not see equality
addressed or opression and exploitation attacked until society decided 
that government was the way to acheive it.

One last point. This is not a "list". This is a newsgroup, and this is
Usenet. Just a point of order.

Marty.
---------------------=============***O***=============-------------------------
Martin J. Gleeson  | Computer Science, Melbourne Uni, Oz |    ...  __o    Outta
gleeson@mundil.cs.mu.oz.au |     E Pluribus Unix         |  ...   -\<,       my
"We gladly feast on those who would subdue us." - Addams |  ....(_)/(_)..  way!
 "I can't give you brains, but I can give you a diploma." - The Wizard of Oz
---------------------=============***O***=============-------------------------