From: gleeson@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Red Mountain)
Subject: Re: The Lam philosophy 
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 05:10:20 GMT

In <dyfl.724400023@phobos> dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam) writes:
gleeson@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Red Mountain) writes:
>>before (see laissez-faire economics), and fairly universally assessed to
>>be one encouraging oppression and exploitation on a large scale. But I
>>may be wrong in assuming that exploitation and oppression are things you
>>don't want to see. Please tell me I'm right. 

>No exploitation and oppression occurs under laissez-faire.  It is
>just a system in which factors of production are employed according
>to choices made by consumers rather than by a central government.
>The historical myth that capitalism impoverished workers has been
>thoroughly debunked.  Capitalism led to tremendous increases in
>wealth and everybody got richer.

I have no idea where you've been getting your history from, but your
statements could not be further from the truth. Laissez-faire does not
mean that factors of production are employed according to choices made
by consumers. It means that businesses can do whatever they like with
nobody to ensure that anyone gets a fair go. The system you propose
would see age, sexual and racial discrimination on a large scale, because
there would be no authority to enforce what society (that's everyone else
around you, Daniel) knows to be right. But I guess this will fall on deaf
ears, because what you consider to be right of wrong is what people
will put up with via your hallowed "market forces". What _has_ happened
with this system in the past is that society has been very clearly divided
into the wealthy few, who have the means to insulate their consciences
from the deprivation they cause to others, and the poor masses who are
solidly stuck in a poverty trap and will never have the means to make
any choices to affect these magical "market forces".

>>Well, perhaps you would care to outline how anarchy would be of benefit
>>for _all_ of society?

>I do not impose my value judgement on others.  I try to convince
>people that freedom benefits them.  But if you don't agree, there's
>nothing much more I can do.

You are not advocating freedom. You are mistakenly seeing society's _choice_
to have a system of government for "forcing" you to do things. You are
advocating a slide back to the opression of the middle ages.

>>And better education goes to those who can afford it, and those who can't,
>>through no fault of their own, are disadvantaged.

>Of course the poor will have more restricted access to educational
>services than the rich.  The poor have more restricted access to
>everything.  The rich in general eat better ice cream and drive
>better cars than the poor.  That's the precise meaning of poor and
>rich.  The important point is that in a market economy, you cannot
>grow rich by making others poor.  

Absolute crapola. One of the easiest ways to get rich is by making others
poor. 

>  You become rich if you are best
>able to produce things and render services which, directly or
>indirectly, are highly valued by the consumers, the people who,
>directly or indirectly, pay you.  If you take your principle to its
>logical conclusion, you should be advocating the outright abolition
>of private property.

Then your definition of "logical" must be a hell of a lot different
from everyone elses. I was talking about education and how _Australians_
have decided that it is a right for everyone. Don't try to put words
into my mouth by your twisted logic.

>>So, in other words, the amount and ways in which society benefits from 
>>taxation should be subject to the selfishness, or lack thereof, of the
>>members of society.

>Err?

Err? Why don't you go back and read what was quoted from your original 
post. You were talking about voluntary taxation.

>>I think the big problem here is that you perhaps see a society with 
>>government as trying to bring everybody back to the same level where
>>nobody is poor and nobody is rich, nobody fails and nobody excels. But this
>>is not the purpose of government, IMO. Government, taxation, etc, etc (but
>>not endorsing everything every government does/has done) serves the purpose
>>of giving people a fair go in life and an equal start. If people decide
>>to not work, squander their wealth, etc., they are entitled to, but this
>>should not force their children to start life behind the 8-ball. The (intended)
>>purpose of government is to allow excellence and freedom, prevent inequality
>>and oppression, and help those who can't help themselves, and those who
>>are disadvantaged by the actions of others.

>How does government achieve these things?

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.


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***=============-------------------------
Newsgroups: aus.politics