From: dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam)
Subject: Re: The Lam philosophy
Organization: Collaborative Information Technology Research Institute
Distribution: aus
Date: 18 Dec 92 02:10:08 GMT

gleeson@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Red Mountain) writes:
>The point is that having government is a good way to have an approximately
>objective value judgement. Of course value judgements are always subjective
>in nature. Otherwise we wouldn't be individuals. But proposing anarchy
>as a solution to this perceived conflict in value judgements is not
>the answer because you conveniently leave humans and basic rights such as
>equality and justice out of the equation.

The market is precisely the insitution which harmonizes the
subjective judgements of various people.  And it does not leave
humans out of the equation.  Market phenomena are the result of human
action.

>So you say. So because people want a fair start in life for their children and 
>equality and justice for all, that makes them communists/socialists/statists?
>(so you imply).

No, but the means which they advocate are statist.  There is nothing
wrong with that by itself, of course.  I may not like the state, but
other people obviously do.  What I do try to point out is that
interventionist policies often fail to achieve the objectives of
those who advocate them as well as an unhampered market.

>So? Why don't you address the issue?

I have been trying to do that, only to have ad hominem attacks
directed against me.  "Your views have been rejected by society."  I
know that.  "You don't have any compassion for your fellow men."  You
don't know that.  But the question is not me, but the policies that I
have been advocating versus others'.

>You **cannot** argue for the social advantages of any economic system without
>including people. What do you think comprises the participants of any 
>economic system? Who is affected by an economic system? People. You have
>shown well that you have no care or compassion for your fellow men by your
>arguments for a system that has seen widespread opression and exploitation
>in the past (and the Industrial Revolution era is not the only time that
>the laissez faire system has been tried and seen to fail, Daniel). It's no
>good trying to convince the rest of us to consider an economic system
>without considering the people it affects. You see, we actually care about
>our fellow man. So that's why your arguments fall on deaf ears. Get it?

What do you think I meant when I said social advantages?  What could
I have meant but the well-being of the people?  I am the last one to
be under the illusion, so common among collectivists, that there are
such things as social goods unrelated to the happiness of individual
human beings.  You're attacking a straw man.  I am arguing for
lassez-faire capitalism precisely *because* I believe it offers the
best hopes for the greatest number of people to achieve the greatest
happiness.  My reasons for believing in laissez-faire are probably
not too different from your reasons for believing in intervention.

As for your historical comment that the I.R. was not the only time
when capitalism was seen to fail, you need to be more specific about
the period you're talking about.  I presume you have in mind
principally the Great Depression.  That, too, is a common conception
which I think is false.  Again, only references can help in this kind
of dispute.  The best one is probably _America's Great Depression_ by
M. Rothbard.  The gist of the point is that it was not laissez-faire
which led to the depression but government intervention, mainly in
the form of credit expansion in the 1920s.

--
	Daniel Lam			Phone 	+61 3 2822426
	Melbourne, Australia		Fax   	+61 3 2822490

In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.
Newsgroups: aus.politics