From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: An Observation
Keywords: Ethical Problems,Marginal Problems
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:59:40 GMT

Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>
>There's evidence for almost any position you care to name; it just
>depends on which correlations you assume to be causations, and which
>kinds of evidence you drop as being due to experimental error.
>
>> Take Hong Kong, for example.  No minimum wage laws, and
>>no unemployment problem.  The lowest rung is always there to allow
>>people to develop marketable skills to get further up the ladder.
>
>So is there a causal relationship?  What happens when the wage
>offered for a job is less than that needed to live on (and the
>person can't get two jobs)?  The trouble is that people's needs
>tend to be a step function at the lower end (too little and they
>sicken and die).

What happens if you get struck by cancer and die of it? Life isn't
fair, Chris. Not every problem can be solved. Utopia isn't possible.
To be more specific, what happens when in spite of hundreds of
billions of dollars being spent every year by the government you STILL
can't afford to eat? You can't wish certain problems away, Mr. Holt.
When you claim that system A has flaws, we must also consider whether
those flaws are not in fact worse under system B.

Your argument would have a certain degree of validity of government
actually could fix poverty, but since it can't, arguing that a few
people are poor under capitalism and capitalism is therefore bad seems
specious when you consider how many more are starving under socialism.

>>	Consider that there is a historical connection between
>>Wars On Drugs and crime rates.  Consider the difference in quality
>>between government and private schools.  Consider the failure of
>>Welfare.

>Consider that crime rose during the time that there wasn't a War
>on Drugs as well;

References please, Mr. Holt. I'd like to see evidence that crime was
steadily rising in the US before 1904. From what I recall, the numbers
fluctuated but had no trend in particular.  If you can give me
evidence of an upward trend, I'd be mightily suprised. I'm waiting
with baited breath, not that facts have ever been something you've
cared about.

>consider the connection between crime and poverty.

What connection? Admittedly, poor people commit more crimes, but you
seem to be implying that poverty per se is what causes crime. It is
not.

In 1800, the standard of living in the US was astonishingly low
compared to where it is now. Somehow, though, the crime rate was also
much lower. Interestingly, the crime rate HAS risen dramatically
following the introduction of the "Great Society" programs in the US,
which of course are exactly the sorts of things you would have us
believe would reduce crime. Where is your case for what you believe
in, Mr. Holt? Where is the country where socialism sped up development
and made the people better off? Where is the government program that
fixed crime? You are the one making claims without evidence, here.
They are implied claims, true, but whenever you state that capitalism
is bad you obviously must mean that some alternative is better. Where
is the concrete evidence for your alternative?

>Consider the difference in education quality between
>those countries with public education and those without.

Well, lets consider the difference. The literacy rate was actually
higher in the US before public education. Its a dirty little secret,
but it isn't hard to find the statistics. Looks like the experiment
has been run, Mr. Holt, and its been a failure.

>Consider
>the failure of countries without welfare to maintain the peace.

Hong Kong, to my knowledge, hasn't invaded anyone. South Korea has no
welfare programs -- North Korea, which does, is the beligerant one.
West Germany has some of the most comprehensive welfare programs in
the world -- and it looks like some of the most comprehensive racists
in the world, too. If you lose your job in Singapore, you are shit out
of luck, but somehow, they don't have riots, do they. The US has very
comprehensive aid to the poor, and we have unsafe streets and riots.

>
>>	There is plenty of evidence.
>
>On all sides.

No. I see virtually none on yours whatsoever. In any case, a rational
individual would look at the preponderance of evidence and lean in
that direction -- but it seems that you are claiming that in spite of
the fact that you consider the evidence inconclusive you have a firm
stand, which is not rational.

Prehaps you claim to have evidence. If you have it, present it. And I
don't mean some specious "the rich are getting wealthier than the
poor" statistics.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.