From: banjo (banjo@xtra.co.nz)
Date: Tue Nov 05 1996 - 16:41:43 MST
Michael Lorrey wrote:
[SNiP]
> What he said is someone who CHOOSES material privations is not
> suffering harm, as it is a freely chosen activity. Someone who chooses
> to remain an alcoholic,
alcoholism is an addiction, a disease. Some people may choose to be and
remain alcoholics, but others need help.
> risks giving up his or her property, families,
> and means of earning wealth, so to be homeless individual in order to
> remain substance abuser, in spite of the efforts of any other person
> who cares about them, means voluntarily accepting ones suffering. THe
> state of the economy has not a damn thing to do with it. I know, I was
> there once.
I never mentioned alcoholism as dependent on the state of the economy.
But come to think of it, i suspect you'll find that there are statistical
correlations between Unemployment levels and, Violent Crime, addiction rates,
suicides and mental illness.
> SOmeone who freely choses not to make the effort to obtain the education
> to earn a good living voluntarily accepts the associated suffering of
> living in poverty. I know, I was there once.
>
> THe HIGH poverty is a function of the amount of government subsidy for
> reproduction among those who freely choose to remain in poverty.
I strongly disagree. By your argument, if we exterminated those losers
who "choose" to be poor, then we'll have "solved" poverty.
> Your Dale Carngie had it right. We are all free to chose wealth or
> poverty, to choose to be with the families that love us or live alone
> under bridges.
ok, i dare you to *choose* to be a multi-billionaire.
Enigl@aol.com wrote:
> Ian Goddard wrote:
> > Allocation of resources by consumer choice, by the voice
> > of the people, founded upon the theory and application of private
> > property, contract law, and tort liability consistently prove to
> > yield maximal social outcomes [SNiP]
>
> <<Banjo>> i disagree>>
>
> Why? Do you have better alternatives? Better than. . . Capitalism?
Yep, extremist-woolly-liberal middle-of-the-road socialism.
Not State Socialism.
> What's wrong with consumer choice and the voice of the people?
> Don't you agree with private property?
> Or is contract law a problem for you?
> Or, tort liability?
Actually i take Mr Proudhons' stance that Property (in Capitalist terms)
is Theft. If a mining company discovers, claims and mines a large seam of
coal, then i believe that they have stolen it from me and by implication,
the everybody else (aka The People).
> << Banjo>>where is the proof ?>>
>
> USSR (past, and for good reason past), Cuba, China and many other nations
> don't let the consumer decide anything. It's all state controlled.
Communism, State Socialism isn't the only form of Socialism.
It's unsophisticated and only useful for controlling peasant economies.
There are many sucessful countries that are Socialist, look to Scandinavia,
Australasia etc
> Contrast the capitalist countries with these. Where would you want to
> live? No consumer choice, no property, and only contract law based on
> government regulation of business deals. Who has maximized the social
> outcomes more? I admit the US has increased the fascist-socialist
> regulations (private property gun control e.g. Republicans) and the Democrats
> have reduced freedoms ways resembling communism (increased taxation used for
> welfare programs). But then, I'm a Libertarian and can see the US slipping
> away from "Ian's maximum social outcomes".
Taxing the rich (a little) to aid the poor (a little) is not Communism.
You ask me where i would rather live... hey im already here. Godzone New Zealand.
> << how does "maximal social outcomes" coincide with high poverty,
> homelessness, a stuffed-to-overflowing penal system, and as
>
> Are you talking about the USSR and China? They are the lowest standard of
> living I can think of in industrialized countries. They have high poverty
> and overflowing prisons. The "homeless" in the US have the highest standard
> of living than in "homeless"any other county. Even Jesus said the poor, they
> will always be with us.
Well, if jesus said it was ok then it must be, not!
The USA, USSR and China may be SuperPowers but they ain't the only countries
in the world.
> Dale Carnegie? Mr. _How to Win Friends and Influence People_. You are free
> to be rich or poor, it is up to you.
Please inform the slum dwellers of Sao Paulo that they've chosen to be poor.
> <<some people don't win in a market economy>>
>
> This is not a meaningful statement. Some people are lazy, stupid or
> pessimistic too. Tell me of a situation were most people win: Anytime you
> pay for a product you want more than the money you spend. For me that's most
> of the time. The fact that I don't "win" every time (Lose-win) makes up for
> the times I (Win-Lose). In general most situations are Win-Win in a market
> economy and the standard of living goes up. You make your own luck and for
> some, the standard of living goes down or does so temporarily.
Im not against a market economy, but i feel that, like all things, it should
be applied in moderation.
Your argument that some people "are lazy, stupid or pessimistic too", implies
the Calvanist doctrine that the rich deserve to be praised for the wonderful
qualities that made them rich, and that the poor must be chastized for the
being the worthless slobs that they self-evidently are.
maybe we should drop this or take it to private email,
is this on-topic for extropians ?
-banjo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:49 MST