From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Thu Nov 07 2002 - 12:38:21 MST
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Alexander Sheppard wrote:
Alexander -- I'm going to extend Greg's comments a bit.
> ### One question - what would you do to those who would produce things that
> matter, like bread, but wouldn't like to share them with those who decided
> to make things that don't matter, like an ISS?
Well if they don't find some market for their goods they will soon run
out of the resources to produce more bread.
> Would you take the bread away from bakers, and give it to the those
> who wanted to (quote)"achieve some other goal that people thought
> mattered <i>themselves</i>"?
No. But there are plenty of people who want to produce and sell bread
to people who may be doing only those things the bread-seller thinks
is most socially productive. What next -- don't sell bread to people
who watch TV or read books?
[Note: I'm not sure the above is from Alexander due to the quoting style.]
> Well, I don't think that anybody ought to be able to dictate to anyone else
> what they want to do.
I think most extropians would agree.
> If the bakers just said, ok, we're going to destory all this bread
> (and hence kill everyone) unless you do what we want,
He is free to do (at least in a capitalist society). But he will soon run
out of ingredients to make bread. He may also have to *pay* to dispose of
his bread (at least here in Seattle that seems likely. Dumping it out
back would presumably create a mouse/rat health hazard and normal "healthy"
disposal methods (presumably composting) does cost money based on the
quantity you are disposing of.
> that really is not acceptable to a free society, that's slavery.
No, "slavery" is when you force someone to do something against their will.
If the baker wants to destroy his bread and doesn't want to be guilty
of a "tragedy of the commons" (e.g. dumping his bread in the middle of
a public national forrest) then he has to dispose of it responsibly.
That should come out of his pocket -- not the public pocket. He would
be far better off not to produce the bread in the first place.
> So yes, the bread would be taken--there's no legitimate reason why
> that shouldn't happen that I understand.
It is the *baker's* bread. I.e. its private property. For the state to
confiscate it would be theft of private property. At least under our
legal system we only do that in extreme cases where there is a greater
good at stake (i.e. transportation systems for many more people).
Even then the state is required to provide fair-market-value for the
goods.
> I mean, resources aren't things you can "trade freely" in many cases--or, as
> I understand it, any cases, but certain ones are a lot more prominent--in
> many cases they are things you need to survive, or have a decent life, like
> food or a house. If someone takes all the food away, for example, you
> die--that's essentially equivilant to murder if the person is deliberately
> depriving you of food by force.
The only scenario I can see for this is people coming into your home and
stealing your food. If one baker decides to deprive the public of "his"
bread then other bakers are free to supply "their" bread. For someone to
take "all" the bread away implies a totalitarian state.
> So, essentially the capitalist system is based on threats and punishment
> by the powerful, who control the resources that others need to live by force.
There is a bakery about 2 blocks up the street from me. They are part of
a local NW chain of bakeries not a national chain of bakeries.
If I go in to buy a loaf of bread and they refuse to sell me one I simply
go down the street to my grocery store and buy a different brand.
Because there is generally competiation there is no such thing as someone
who "controls the resources" essential for survival. When this situation
arises in a capitalistic system we generally call it a "monopoly" and
seek solutions for the centralization of power.
> The powerful threaten the weak with forced deprivation of resources,
> and the weak, fearing for their lives, enter into slavery for the masters.
I don't see Bill Gates running around buying up all of the grocery stores
just to jack up the price of bread. (Bread has very low profit margins.)
Furthermore, it is generally illegal in most countries to imprison someone
who has committed no crime. Slavery is generally outlawed. So you must
be speaking figuratively. In most capitalistic societies people are free
to seek better opportunities with other companies, in other cities, states
and even countries.
If the situation you describe does exist, it is in developing countries
where people are unable to survive in the countryside (in many cases
due to large population growth rates and/or climate changes and/or
military disruptions -- large parts of Africa come to mind)
migrate to the city in search of better opportunities. In this
situation they may be forced to work as so called "slave laborers"
in order to survive. Its going from one borderline survival situation
driven by nature (or dictatorships) to another borderline survival
situation where an employer may be taking advantage of the lack of
local opportunities.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:57:59 MST