Subject:
|
Re: Libertarianism again.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 4 Sep 1999 16:35:23 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
LPIENIAZEK@NOVERA.ihatespamCOM
|
Viewed:
|
1879 times
|
| |
|
|
I'm on slippery ground here and I think I may trip myself up, as we have
guests coming over and I only have a few mins.
Forgive me for not interspersing....
To the points raised about the poor. I don't think Mike's thesis is that
there will not be those who deserve charity. I know it isn't mine. What
our thesis more properly is, is the notion that mere *need* is not the
metric to use. For, if need is the only yardstick, we cannot measure who
is deserving of aid, only how great the need is.
My claim is that if we stop indiscriminately aiding the undeserving, we
will have more disposable income to donate, freely and voluntarily, to
those who have come on misfortune. Meanwhile, those who made bad
decisions and COULD have made allowances in the past, will suffer the
consequences of their actions. That can include starving in the street,
but most likely will be more of the form of having to sell off the
speedboat and cut back on the number of beers/week.
Contrast the underlying difference in world view here. I believe most
people are good and kind and intelligent. Set up the world correctly and
people will by and large make good decisions and be responsible, and
will give freely to help those who had a run of bad luck they could not
possibly defend against.
I sincerely believe that those who argue that need is the only test
believe that most people are bad and stupid and mean, that is, that
human nature is to be a slacker and steal. They feel the productive
should be forced to aid whoever happens to not have whatever it is they
want, and they should not be able to say who is a slacker and who isn't,
or use that as a guide to deciding who to help.
My world view is much more positive than that.
On monopolies...
First, there is an important question here. Should the initiation of the
use of force be a power granted to a single entity, which has a monopoly
on it? The anarcho-capitalists will say not, and will argue for
competing governments in the same place. I don't think I agree. But I am
not sure. It would be an interesting experiment. I tend to come down on
the side of a single, but limited, government holding sway in a
particular territory (it may be part of a larger federation the way that
counties are in states which are in a nation).
But is that a natural monopoly in the sense of what I declaimed as not
being possible? No. When I spoke of natural monopolies, I was speaking
of commerce. I would argue that force by definition is not a part of
commerce. That is what I am willing to say on your question.
Now, to the other examples from the world of commerce. Let us examine
what constitutes a monopoly.
What do you think does?
The telephone area gets a lot of discussion. Here are a few scattered
points to ponder...
If I have an alternative way to satisfy my need, do I still have a
monopoly in place?
- the post office, walkie talkies, CBs, cell phones, and phone over
cable are all ways to communicate that don't use my LAC. Some are more
practical than others.
If the government granted my LAC a monopoly in the past, let it get
entrenched to the point where laying the last mile is now tough, is that
a natural monopoly or a government imposed one?
What constitutes a "too high" barrier to entry? The cable company just
laid fiber to my driveway, and put in a new junction box, in the process
of fibering my whole street. Presumably that's so they don't have to
ride over the LAC copper or their existing coax when they offer me
broadband, which will include dialtone.
If the government granted one company a near monopoly on LD and had been
regulating the price of LD in order to subsidise LAC, was that a natural
monopoly or a government imposed one.
I guess my thesis here is that whenever someone presents a "natural
monopoly" in the realm of commerce, I am going to ask:
- what are the actual barriers to entry for a competitior to provide
identical service
- what are the alternatives to providing similar or comparable service
(a generator is a competitior of a power company, a well is a
competitior of city water)?
- what has government been doing so far?
I tend to carry out this analysis and each and every time I find the HOG
(hand of government) enforcing the "natural" monopoly...
- city water departments so that we can pad the payrolls with union
voters.
- cable franchises to maximise campaign contributions and get some
revenue from license fees
- electric utilities regulated 8 ways from sunday for god knows why and
laws OUTLAWING the erection of competing power grids
and so on.
That's not to say that one company can't rise to a dominant position.
Standard Oil, US Steel, IBM, Microsoft. But each one of those gave
excellent product at excellent prices, for a while, and earned their
position. And each one eventually fell prey to its own inefficiency.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Libertarianism again.
|
| Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote (...) So tell me, how do we stop them taking what is ours by brute force, or simply degrading our environment by dying in it? Even if you don't have welfare you need some way to stop homeless people coming to (...) (25 years ago, 4-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
276 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
