From: KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: An Observation
Date: 22 Jan 93 04:44:56 GMT
Organization: Somewhere beyond Political correctism...
NNTP-Posting-Host: cc210-7.cl.msu.edu

pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>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.

Hmmm...a Social Darwinist declaring life unfair.  Can you smell an oxymoronic
situation, folks?  (sorry for the sniping tone, but...I'll chat on this point
later in the article...)

>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.

     Debating between Neo-Stalinist Communism and a mythological version of
Capitalism based on a rosy version of America in the late 1800's does not do
the discussion justice.  Other systems which existed around the world BEFORE
Europeans started their souljourn around the world actually kept their peoples
well off and in a population balance.  I've yet to see the European system
variants (and capitalism in particular) do this, indeed they seem to have a
line about poor people deserving their fate running through them.

>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.

     As long as you look merely at eco-political systems, you're right.  There
ARE other forces which make their effects knows ALONGSIDE the eco-political
world.

>>consider the connection between crime and poverty.

>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.

     You wouldn't believe how rich the yoeman of 1800 was.  He had his source
of food complete with some control over how it came about (the farm), he had
twin sources of social and cultural stimulation (the church and the pub), a
rock-steady set of expectations and rewards for belonging in a society which
helped him to develope the ways he could (note that I didn't say spoon-fed him
everything he wanted), and a government which went as far as it could in
protecting his investment and didn't NEED to try to create a society.  I see
none of this (especially the society aspect) going on today.

>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.

     America was founded with the IDEA that its citizens should be educated and
that the education should be public wherever necessary.  The township concept
of political division in most of the US was set up with land set aside for
schools funded publically.  The decline in American public education can be
explained by a combination of factors:  Expansion of school district size
beyond optimum sizes (X<100 K-12, IMHO), the resultant shift from local control
to bureaucratic control, and economic inequalities (Ever notice that students
in rich neighborhoods have the choice between good public schools and good
private schools?  I have...).

>>Consider
>>the failure of countries without welfare to maintain the peace.
>
>Hong Kong, to my knowledge, hasn't invaded anyone.

     Whom does Hong Kong have to attack?  China?  Hmmm...can you smell the
slaughter of Hong Kong from such an attack?

>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.

     This has been occurring for hundreds of years.  After all, they are the
ones who gave us the word "Slave"--from the slavs they would invade and sell to
others.  I am curious, though...how does socialism CREATE racism, as you seem
to imply with the above quote?

>If you lose your job in Singapore, you are shit out of luck, but somehow
>they don't have riots, do they.

     Singapore has a highly restrictive society, one in which political
opression (sorry if the Objectivists have trouble understanding this term,
since according to Rand political repression cannot happen--only economic
opression) is a daily way of life.  They also have mandatory military service. 
Hardly the "free society" you wish to dream about--unless your viewpoint of
rights and freedoms is limited to "the right to make as much money as I can get
my grubby hands on."

     And as for the subject of Social Darwinism:  Imbedded (sp?) in Ayn's
writings is the idea of Social Darwinism--that one gets what one deserves, and
any system which gets in the way of this is wrong.  I could rail on the
evilness of this concept, but for now I will merely comment that S.D. is
mistaken in its assumption of intent in natural systems.  Wealth, fame, and
happiness do not come to those who deserve it, but to those who can handle it
(or the dehumiliation necessary to become wealthy/famous).

Final personal opinion note:  Given the 5.5+ billions of people on planet
earth, I will admit that the choices are capitalism and communism/socialism;
and that capitalism is the only choice.  However, I believe that any population
over 1/2 billion is wrong for Planet earth, and therefore Capitalism is wrong
by the need of a large population for Capitalism's existance.  Therefore,
capitalism is by necessity wrong.
-----
Kamchatka Charlie          KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu
EX-objectivist, and glad of it.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism