Libertarians And The Post Office.
3/23/98 3:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time
I just saw a commercial on T.V. that claimed that the Post Office can deliver a package in 3 days just like FedEx and UPS can, but yet FedEx and UPS will charge $11 where as Priority Mail from the Post Office can also deliver it in 3 days but for only $3.
In other words, the Post Office, a government agency, claimed on T.V. that it can deliver mail just as efficiently as UPS and FedEX (private businesses) for less money. I also read in a Poli-Sci text book that privatizing the Post Office will not increase efficiency but just merely raise the expense.
I also just read parts of Harry Browne's book, Why Government Doesn't Work, and in one part he claimed that the Post Office is less efficient than UPS and FedEx.
I'm confused. Could the Libertarians reading this message board please explain this to me? Thanx.
Subject: Re: Libertarians And The Post Office.
Date: 3/23/98 8:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time CheffJeff Message-id: <1998032312174901.HAA12726@ladder03.news.aol.com>
you asked:
In other words, the Post Office, a government agency, claimed on T.V. that it can deliver mail just as efficiently as UPS and FedEX (private businesses) for less money. I also read in a Poli-Sci text book that privatizing the Post Office will not increase efficiency but just merely raise the expense. I also just read parts of Harry Browne's book, Why Government Doesn't Work, and in one part he claimed that the Post Office is less efficient than UPS and FedEx.
I'm confused. Could the Libertarians reading this message board please explain this to me? Thanx.>>
As one who used to work for the post office (USPS), in particular, at the Bulk Mail Center (where only 2nd, 3rd, and 4th--packages--class mail is processed), I think I can answer your question.
I believe you've got your days mixed up. UPS and FEDX can do it in less than 3 days. And the success rate of the USPS is not always within the 3 day period. And FEDX and UPS offer tracking and other services that the USPS doesn't. And.....the USPS.....well, I hate to say this online, but I know it's true....The USPS lies through it's teeth. And finally, any gains the USPS has made in services and costs have occured BECAUSE OF COMPETITION from private delivery businesses.
Jeff
Subject: Re: Libertarians And The Post Office.
Date: 3/23/98 10:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time VCash29827 Message-id: <1998032314350001.JAA24513@ladder03.news.aol.com>
<.I'm confused. Could the Libertarians reading this message board please explain this to me? Thanx.>> I think confusion is the whole point. Try the post office and see if it works, good luck, alot of my regular mail doesn't make it to it's intended destination. We have a company acct with Fed EX, I'm happy with their service, including cust svc.
Once again, trying to be helpful, Vicki
Subject: Re: Libertarians And The Post Office.
Date: 4/2/98 7:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time WhineyA Message-id: <1998040223121300.SAA14599@ladder03.news.aol.com>
Amen, Jeff!
I am also a former postal employee. I worked in a bulk mail acceptance unit,also. You called this one right. In the first place, priority mail is nothing more than 1st class mail that weighs over 11 oz. Most of the first class mail that is sent to the same destinations arrives in 2 days or less.
They are selling people less service for more money, as usual. Private enterprise would never tolerate the waste that is prevalant in the USPS. The payroll is top-heavy in management,and probably 20% of the work force does 90% of the work.
Bob
Subject: Re: Libertarians And The Post Office.
Date: 4/3/98 8:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time CheffJeff Message-id: <1998040312410801.HAA22390@ladder03.news.aol.com>
Bob (whineya) sez:
>
Why did you leave the USPS? The reason I ask is because people think I was nuts to leave a job that paid me $36,000 (in 1986) for work that a high school student could have done. Not to mention, cheap health bennies, 5 weeks vacation, sick leave, no payments to social security, etc.
I left, in part, because of being a libertarian. Couldn't look at myself in the mirror too long knowing that I was producing maybe $15,000 worth of values, yet being paid $36K. Where was the extra $21K coming from? Answer: someone else. Immoral. Same as robbing a bank, isn't it?
This lies at the heart of making a society libertarian, BTW. I believe that only by individual choices will we progress toward a more civilized world.
Votes, protests, etc. may help, but until each person examines his own dishonesties and works to eliminate them, he's stuck in an unside down world of destruction and unhappiness.
Well rested and ready to kick butt, Jeff
Subject: Re: Libertarians And The Post Office.
Date: 4/3/98 8:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time VCash29827 Message-id: <1998040312584000.HAA21265@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>
My husband's aunt recently quit her $45k USPS job selling stamps, with 20 yrs seniority, to open her own business. She quit because she had to work with somebody who didn't like her!!! I'm not kidding here, she's not the most intellegent creature God created. I'm not sure if I find her reasoning sound, but my husband and I are among her only supporters(moral support if nothing else:-)) in the family. Should she have to go back to work for someone else, she's qualified to do what? A minimum wage job?
So, I would like to know, in your opinion are private sector jobs less stressful? Maybe I'm being judgemental here, but just how much stress is there selling stamps?
Enquiring minds, Vicki
Subject: Re: Libertarians And The Post Office.
Date: 4/3/98 9:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time WhineyA Message-id: <1998040313233200.IAA26057@ladder03.news.aol.com>
Jeff,
I left for ,basically,the same reason(s). I was making 40k+ annually. I worked tons of overtime. Most of the ot that I worked was unnecessary. The management was compelled to use up the remainder of the budjet before the fiscal year was up, so they passed out the overtime the last couple of months leading up to it. A good part of it was "V" time,or in ordinarilly vernacular,double-time. That adds up in a hurry. I had been a professinal musician all my life,befor I went to work at USPS. I decided to get a "real" job,and settle down; the way you're "supposed" to do. For a while,I enjoyed the security,and didn't mind the work. Six and a half years of it,and I had a very low opinion of myself. I decided to go back to being a musician,again. I don't make as much money,as I used to,but I am happier,and feel better about myself. I agree with Robert Ringer's opinion; If you draw a gov't check,of any kind whatsoever, You are no more than a common welfare recipient,and are living off the toil of the rest of us. I know that's a strong statement,and I hope it doesn't step on anyone's toes, but think about it.
Bob
Subject: Re: Libertarians And The Post Office.
Date: 4/3/98 1:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time TMA68 Message-id: <1998040317402600.MAA25846@ladder03.news.aol.com>
< If you draw a gov't check, of any kind whatsoever, You are no more than a common welfare recipient, and are living off the toil of the rest of us. >> -- Whineya
Would you apply this to those in the military? The reason I ask is, most libertarians seem to consider the military to be one of the few legitimate functions of the federal government. If we apply this "wel- fare recipient" line of reasoning even to those performing what we consider legitimate functions, are we not at that point contradicting ourselves?
Todd
Subject: Re: Libertarians And The Post Office.
Date: 4/4/98 3:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time WhineyA Message-id: <1998040419362700.OAA25118@ladder01.news.aol.com>
I agree with you. I must make an exception for the military. That is, I must admit, one gov't function,that the feds run about as efficiently as it ever will. Forget the $500 toilet seats,etc. Yes, you are correct;the military is a necessary part of the federal gov't. I've not been in the military,but I have the utmost admiration and respect for those who serve,and have served,in our armed forces. I admit,the statement is way too objective and generalized.
Bob
Subject: Re: Libertarians And The Post Office.
Date: 4/4/98 12:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time LAWECON Message-id: <1998040404254300.XAA18805@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Bob>
Well, of course you're quite right, Bob. And the same applies to those of us who send our children to public schools or universities or went ourselves, or to those who receive social security "benefits," etc. There is no principled difference between any of these guys and welfare recipients. And your point is then..... what? Should libertarians relatively impoverish themselves by separating themselves from all of the government's "products"? Why is that? What do you think of my attempted proof that all property in this society [and virtually every other society] is "tainted by theft" according to typical libertarian standards of "theft"?
My suggestion is that we who don't want to work for government shouldn't do so. Certainly a bureaucracy is generally a fairly unpleasant and frustrating place to work, unless you're good at "serving time" and licking the hand of your superior [since productivity doesn't count for anything, subservience is the only virtue]. But let's not imagine that our preferences in this regard are somehow necessary or sufficient to weaken or destroy the state. If anything, they strengthen the state by assuring it of very loyal and well paid employees who know that they'd better fight like heck to keep their bureaucracies and jobs, or else.
Craig Bolton
"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer
Subject: Re: Libertarians And The Post Office.
Date: 4/4/98 3:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time WhineyA Message-id: <1998040419502800.OAA27274@ladder01.news.aol.com>
The sad part of working for the gov't,is the shame that the benefits and pay of many govt jobs are more financially rewarding,especially for people who don't possess any formidable skills,and who don't have a lot of education,than jobs in the private sector. It is a difficult choice to make,when confronted with the decision to work in the private sector for less money and less security,or work for the govt,and have a job for life,and bennies up the ying-yang. I made that choice,and it wasn't easy. Again, I feel so much better about myself. Sometimes, "More is Less."
We really need to take a look at ourselves. Does what we produce equal what we are paid? I think that many govt employees could ask themselves that question.
When a beuracracy is created, the top priority of the beauracracy immediately becomes, the preservation of itself.
Bob
Subject: Re: Libertarians And The Post Office.
Date: 4/3/98 11:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time Randomthot Message-id: <1998040403360700.WAA10187@ladder01.news.aol.com>
< Couldn't look at myself in the mirror too long knowing that I was producing maybe $15,000 worth of values, yet being paid $36K. Where was the extra $21K coming from? Answer: someone else. Immoral. Same as robbing a bank, isn't it? >
Interesting standard of morality. Are you implying that anyone who voluntarily allows him or herself to be overpaid is acting immorally? Is it because you perceived yourself to be working in a government position? That's not really true you know -- at least not in the sense of being paid out of tax dollars. The USPS hasn't accepted taxpayer money for quite some time now. It may be a protected monopoly but the only real thing it has a monopoly over is the right to stick mail in that funny little box at the end of your driveway. There are alternate means to have anything delivered -- UPS, FedEx, e-mail. If you don't want to use the USPS it's actually fairly easy to get around it.
If your standard includes those working in the private sector then there are quite a few overpaid and therefore immoral clowns out there. How do you judge the value of someone's work? Answer: by how much he or she can command in the open market. If the USPS negotiated a salary of 36K for your job with the union representing you then that's what your work was worth.
Where did you come up with the 15K figure?
Randomthot
Does the noise in my head bother you?
Subject: Re: Libertarians And The Post Office.
Date: 4/4/98 10:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time CheffJeff Message-id: <1998040414394600.JAA14156@ladder03.news.aol.com>
more questions (who'd thought my USPS work would interest so many....hmmm):
< Interesting standard of morality. Are you implying that anyone who voluntarily allows him or herself to be overpaid is acting immorally?>>
Yes. Something for nothing is impossible in reality, is it not? Somebody's gotta pay for it. If it isn't you, it's somone else. And government isn't necessary for this to happen; individual choice is.
>
And they deliver overnight, too. I can't find my source, but this ain't true. Maybe Bob (whiney) has more on this. Remember, there are some in government that claim the budget is balanced, too, yet ignore to include social security, pensions, etc.
and finally,
< If your standard includes those working in the private sector then there are quite a few overpaid and therefore immoral clowns out there. How do you judge the value of someone's work? Answer: by how much he or she can command in the open market. If the USPS negotiated a salary of 36K for your job with the union representing you then that's what your work was worth.
Where did you come up with the 15K figure?>>
The USPS didn't negotiate anything; some individuals within the USPS collaborated with other government individuals willing to use force to extract money from workers to give to me. I refused to join the union as a mechanic and was in managment when I worked with computers. The $15K is figured this way:
I worked from midnite to 8:00. During that shift I worked 2-4 hours, slept or goofed off 2 hours, and studied personal stuff for 2 hours. I probably overestimated the $15K.
Ah....peace of mind...can't be bought at any price,
Jeff
Subject: Re: Libertarians And The Post Office.
Date: 4/4/98 10:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time LAWECON Message-id: <1998040414565701.JAA13918@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Jeff, I think we're talking in circles on this one. You and I certainly have similar tastes in the conditions we prefer. I would never work for a bureaucracy, found my one experience of working for a public university to be a constant pain, and have often considered leaving the big firm I work for because of the relative rigidity of the office rules. Personal tastes, however, neither have anything to do with morality nor can one expect everyone else to agree.
In order to make your case, you're going to have to show (1) how working for the government is particularly immoral [as opposed to, e.g., working for a private firm that sells its product to the government or simply making a living in a society with a history of theft] and (2) why it is that you expect that libertarians will every become a significant enough part of this society that they will be able to effectively eliminate the pool of those willing to work for government through ostrarcization [sp?]. No society that I know of has ever been in that situation, and I don't imagine that this one ever will be, even in my wildest dreams of a "libertarian society".
Craig Bolton
"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer
Subject: Re: Libertarians And The Post Office.
Date: 4/7/98 7:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time CheffJeff Message-id: <1998040711304001.HAA11156@ladder01.news.aol.com>
you asked for more:
< In order to make your case, you're going to have to show (1) how working for the government is particularly immoral [as opposed to, e.g., working for a private firm that sells its product to the government or simply making a living in a society with a history of theft] and (2) why it is that you expect that libertarians will every become a significant enough part of this society that they will be able to effectively eliminate the pool of those willing to work for government through ostrarcization [sp?]. No society that I know of has ever been in that situation, and I don't imagine that this one ever will be, even in my wildest dreams of a "libertarian society".>>
1) I'm not sure I'm the one to make this case about government work vs private firm work, because I believe it doesn't matter whether it's working for a private firm or government job that determines immorality. My point is, if you are getting paid more than you are producing, it's immoral. Or said another way, if you are producing less than you are consuming, it's immoral. (Children and others unable to produce enough are exempt from this immorality due to having no choice as to their conditions.---I know this may generate another thread about the word "unable" but is not what we're discussing right now.)
2) I was going, but forgot, to delete the word "ostracism" in my previous post because I wasn't wanting to get into it currently. I should have also included the word "competition," too. Ostracism and competition will help eliminate BS "jobs." Someone mentioned UPS out competing the USPS. There's a jillion other examples of free people outcompeting government "services."
As for ostracism, there are numerous groups building giant databases that are designed to not sell to value destroyers (see above). These people are developing value ratings for individuals, both positive and negative. For example, suppose Senator Tom Harkin wants to buy a plane ticket and the company selling these tickets checks his Acme value rating and it comes up as a minus 155,000. "I'm sorry Mr. Harkin, but you'll have to get your ticket elsewhere. We don't sell to anyone with a negative rating. This protects our good customers from having to ride with the likes of you." With so much information becoming available, this type of choice for businesses is becoming readily available. Now, whether honest people in business actually use this tool is another matter that only time will tell. But again, marketing these rating services may become one of the highest values being produced (competition). This combination of ostracism and competition can be a powerful tool, don't you think?
Jeff
Subject: Re: Libertarians And The Post Office.
Date: 4/7/98 9:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time LAWECON Message-id: <1998040713510900.JAA22730@ladder01.news.aol.com>
O.K.. Here's my reply -
(1) I think that you need to read my response to Presbyte's post and respond to that. The post concerns just how far moral duties extend in the context of arms length commercial transactions. You apparently have a unique view of these matters, and I'd like you to respond to the post as I'd like to know whether this view is simply a personal preference or something that you can justify.
(2) Government jobs and government functions are never eliminated by competition. The government isn't is business to make a profit. If it makes a loss it simply crys for more tax revenues for the public good. In some cases [like carrying first class mail] it simply outlaws competition. Hence, high paying government jobs aren't going to be competed away.
Craig Bolton
"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer
Subject: Moral commercial transactions (was Libs & Post Office) Date: 4/11/98 8:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time CheffJeff Message-id: <1998041112583300.IAA04391@ladder03.news.aol.com>
Craig asked (me?):
>
If one gets something for nothing, someone else had to produce it, right? The more often one does this, the weaker he becomes, because he is increasingly existing off the work of others. He is dependent on others.
His perceived ability to pull his own weight is diminished. His courage to create is diminished while his fear of living is increased. His self esteem is diminished. His life is diminished. And life is MUCH too short for this, and the happiness acheivable only from productive effort is MUCH too important to sacrifice. Now for commercial transactions...
About a month ago, I heard an caller on a radio want-ad program (radio-tradio) advertise a photocopier for sale. I went to look at it and asked, "How much?" "$40," came the reply. My first thought was, you fool!!!---this thing is worth at least $3,000 new. So I said, "Gee, I don't know..." (I didn't know, yet) Well, I bought it for $40, asked some friends of mine in the copy business how to make it work (a piece of paper was caught in the cleaning blade) and what it was worth. Brand new (it's ten years old) it cost $7,500!!! and I got it for $40! I believe you're asking, do I feel this action of mine is immoral?
No, I don't. The person I bought it from was desperate for money (he's an Elvis impersonator--really!) and he couldn't afford the $125 minimum it would take for a copy company come and fix it. He knew the value of it but was willing to forego most of that for instant money. I wasn't really looking for a copier and wouldn't have paid much more for it anyway. So we both got something we wanted. That is, no one produced something for nothing and no one got something for nothing. OK?
Thank ya very muuuch [wiggle upper lip] It's gonna be a blue, blue Christmas without ya, Jeff
Subject: Re: Moral commercial transactions (was Libs & Post Office) Date: 4/11/98 2:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time LAWECON Message-id: <1998041118303801.OAA15775@ladder01.news.aol.com>
As I understand your response [and perhaps I don't completely understand it b/c your example still seems to me to be contrary to the principle] your view of "production" is much like that of the French Physiocrats of the 1760s.
[This is not an insult, the Physiocrats were by far the most profound economic thinkers prior to James Stewart/Adam Smith.] The Physiocrats also made the argument that, regardless of irrelevancies such as the "value" that individuals or markets place on particular goods, that the main function of particular goods was in their physical ability to support further production. Hence, tangible goods that were consumed in production or facilitated production [corn or building or iron plows] were good thinks, mere services were a "waste" and "frivilous goods" like diamonds, beautiful paintings, etc. were also a "waste". The Physiocrats ultimately concluded that the source of all worth, as they defined it, was land. [A conclusion that you apparently do not endorse.]
This type of reasoning was severely weakened by Adam Smith and was entirely overthrown by the marginalist [including but not limited to the Austrians] in the 1870s. The contemporary view in economics is that "all that matters" is value AS EVALUATED BY A COMPETITIVE MARKET. If an activity increases value, then it is "productive". The activity of middlemen [which I've referred to before] greatly increases value, but is entirely "unproductive" by Physiocratic standards. All that middlemen do is transfer goods or resources from those who value them less to those who value them more. The higher valued use may be due to the fact that the higher valued demander has a "more productive" [in the Physiocratic sense] use to put the resource or it may simply be because he wants the good more than other people AND is willing to give up other alternative goods at a greater rate to obtain it [not merely "want" but "demand"]. According to the marginalist/subjectivist view, it doesn't matter.
I would suggest to you that the marginalist/subjectivist view is much more compatible with libertarianism than is your view. And [I hope that you won't take offense, but I believe this is logically true] that your view shares much with Randomthot's view. Randomthot seems to believe that "the environment" [defined as he wants to define it] should be "our" highest standard, and that the wants of all particular individual selfish human wants should be subordinated to "the environment" [and if you don't agree, tough]. You apparently believe that "honest work" should be the highest value, with the same logical implications. I put it to you that this is simply unlibertarian.
Either you take peoples' values and ultimate judgments as they are, and try to figure out a political structure where there often significant differences with your values and ultimate judgments can be accomidated, or you end up endorsing some sort of collectivism, where these choices are made by those in positions of power.
Craig Bolton
"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer
Subject: Re: Moral commercial transactions (was Libs & Post Office) Date: 4/13/98 2:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time Randomthot Message-id: <1998041306201900.CAA13069@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Why exactly should he take offense? It puts him in good company :)
The problem here is that you either don't understand what I'm talking about or you are deliberately twisting my words to suit your own purpose. First, the "environment" can be loosely defined as that which exists apart from human activity. It's basically the fishbowl we all swim around in. Second, I'm not an Earth-Firster. My views regarding environmental law stem directly from libertarian principles. This may be one of those areas like abortion and children's rights where honest men may honestly disagree while proceeding from the same first principles.
When you decide you don't care about the environment you don't just decide for yourself, you also make that decision for me. You essentially nullify my decision to care.
You've stated that the main problem is an insufficiently developed system of property rights. Would you care to elaborate on how you would develop such a system to cover the atmosphere? The oceans? Wildlife? The ozone layer? Frankly, the river problem, as complex as you recognize it to be, is probably the simplest example.
Another issue that I've never seen addressed here is the temporal problem.
Let's stick to the simple example and say that you have acquired the rights to the Mississippi River. As the lawful owner you decide that the best and highest use for the 'Ole Miss is as the nations sewer system. You invite any and all to dump whatever they want to (for the appropriate fee, of course).
Problem is, no matter how well this works out for you, no matter how successful this may be as a business proposition, eventually you have to give it up -- because you die. And now, as a practical matter, nobody can ever reverse your decision because nothing can ever live there again. As a species we're perfectly capable of creating compounds that effectively never degrade and are astonishingly toxic in minute quantities. Do you really have the right to make that decision for future generations?
As a practical matter any political structure beyond the non-existant structure of anarchy involves some sort of collective decision-making. Even anarchy requires a collective decision to reject any other sort of political structure. Furthermore, power comes in many forms. What practical difference does it make whether the power comes from the possession of much wealth and property or is conferred through the political process?
Randomthot
Oops.... I'm afraid my karma ran over your dogma.
Subject: Re: Moral commercial transactions (was Libs & Post Office) Date: 4/13/98 10:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time LAWECON Message-id: <1998041402572100.WAA09386@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Random,
I'm going to try responding to you again, although my better judgment is against it. We'll see if you can keep to the arguments this time, rather than resorting to ad hominems everytime you're loosing the argument.
I am working from the following principles: (1) There are many things people value [let's call these things "goods" or "resources," depending upon whether they are directly consumed by people or they are not directly consumed by people but are used to produce goods that are consumed by people]. (2) Some of these things are so abundant that they are free. (3) Some of these things are "scarce," in the sense that there is not enough to go around at a zero price. (4) If a good is scarce, then some social system is used to allocate the thing. The system can be "first in line," or "I'm a friend [relative] of the ruler" or "I'm willing to pay the highest price for use of the good [or a marginal unit of it]." or any of a variety of other systems.
(5) The person to whom a scarce good or scarce resource is allocated - the person who can decide what use it is put to - is said to have "property rights" in the scarce good or resource. (6) The property rights system that rests upon the claim that particular "scarce goods" are "common property" simply results in a competition to appropriate the immediate use of those resources at the sacrifice of their future use [the so-called "Tragedy of the Commons"].
Despite your attempt to exclude "the environment" from the above principles, the whole debate is exactly about how certain scarce aspects of "the environment" shall be used BY HUMAN BEINGS. If certain aspects of the environment are not scarce, then there is no debate, because my use [e.g., my enjoyment of a beautiful sunset] does not interfer with [preclude] your use.
As I said at the start of this thread, there are certain types of scarce resources that [at our present technological understanding] can only be allocated through monopoly ownership. That a resource falls into this category does not AUTOMATICALLY mean that the monopoly owner should be the government. As I also pointed out, there are ample historical examples where such a resource is owned by the government in one society and a private monopolist in another society and the resource is "better" used by the private monopolist than by the government ["better" being measured by consumer satisfaction].
It also follows that if the characteristic of these resources that makes them "common pool" resources can be ultimately subject to privatization through improved technology, then they are no longer "common pool" resources. Now you have asked just what technologies those are in, for instance, the case of air pollution. Answer: if I knew, then the technologies would either already exist and be well known, or I'd be rich tomorrow. Does this mean that there are no examples of such an evolution? No, it doesn't. People use to believe that mail delivery, telephone service, power generation, etc. were "inherently" common pool resources "by their nature". We now see that they are not.
Indeed, if someone actually had property rights in the air today, we'd very shortly see that it was not a "common pool" resource - but so far the gains from such a drastic privitization are not so great as the costs.
As for your apparent conclusion that the optimal human use of a "natural" common pool resource is zero; I suggest that you follow your own principle and stop using the air. After all, by using the air you're aggressing on our common right to unused air and an undisturbed environment.
Craig Bolton
"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer
Subject: Re: Moral commercial transactions (was Libs & Post Office) Date: 4/14/98 11:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time Randomthot Message-id: <1998041503541801.XAA22135@ladder01.news.aol.com>
< Random,
I'm going to try responding to you again, although my better judgment is against it.> I know the feeling.
Make ya a deal... don't talk down to me and don't assume I'm an idiot or a communist if I happen to disagree on a point and I'll promise to be good.
OK?
(5) The person to whom a scarce good or scarce resource is allocated - the person who can decide what use it is put to - is said to have "property rights" in the scarce good or resource. (6) The property rights system that rests upon the claim that particular "scarce goods" are "common property" simply results in a competition to appropriate the immediate use of those resources at the sacrifice of their future use [the so-called "Tragedy of the Commons"].
Despite your attempt to exclude "the environment" from the above principles, the whole debate is exactly about how certain scarce aspects of "the environment" shall be used BY HUMAN BEINGS. If certain aspects of the environment are not scarce, then there is no debate, because my use [e.g., my enjoyment of a beautiful sunset] does not interfer with [preclude] your use.
As I said at the start of this thread, there are certain types of scarce resources that [at our present technological understanding] can only be allocated through monopoly ownership. That a resource falls into this category does not AUTOMATICALLY mean that the monopoly owner should be the government. As I also pointed out, there are ample historical examples where such a resource is owned by the government in one society and a private monopolist in another society and the resource is "better" used by the private monopolist than by the government ["better" being measured by consumer satisfaction].
It also follows that if the characteristic of these resources that makes them "common pool" resources can be ultimately subject to privatization through improved technology, then they are no longer "common pool" resources. Now you have asked just what technologies those are in, for instance, the case of air pollution. Answer: if I knew, then the technologies would either already exist and be well known, or I'd be rich tomorrow. Does this mean that there are no examples of such an evolution? No, it doesn't. People use to believe that mail delivery, telephone service, power generation, etc. were "inherently" common pool resources "by their nature". We now see that they are not. >
All the examples you just cited are human creations. They are industries as opposed to resources. I totally agree with your analysis as far as they are concerned.
As for your apparent conclusion that the optimal human use of a "natural" common pool resource is zero; I suggest that you follow your own principle and stop using the air. After all, by using the air you're aggressing on our common right to unused air and an undisturbed environment.
Craig Bolton>
I'm not saying don't use it. Just don't ruin it for everyone else.
Breathe it, pump it into tires, fly around in it, liquify some and sell it, whatever. The only use I object to is using it as a disposal medium for toxic waste. If it were possible for you to foul your air without affecting my air then I would say "Fine. Do what you want.", but it isn't possible and, I dare say unless and until you have your own planet or other self-contained environment to play around in, it never will be possible.
According to your own analysis a system of property rights to cover the atmosphere is absurd. What exactly would you own the rights to? A geometrical airspace? A quantity of actual air molecules? I mean, if you want to bottle up air and sell it in a can, then fine, go ahead ( I think someone may have beat you to it though). Want to use it in hoses and pipes to transmit power (oops, someone already invented pneumatics... damn).
Seriously, what is it that you want to do with it aside from screw it up for everybody else?
Ever see the movie "Total Recall"? Part of the story took place on a Martian base where one person did indeed own, or at least control, the air.
Maybe someday you can be that person. Something to aspire to I guess.
In the meantime my assertion is that the air belongs to either everybody or nobody or both. We all have equal rights to use it. None of us has the right to deny that use to another (in the extreme this is called "suffocation"). In it's clean and natural state it's a free resource. Get it dirty enough and it becomes less free in the sense that you have to start exerting other resources to use it (e.g. a gas mask).
I understand the principles you are starting from but I believe your logic is flawed when you try to apply it the way you do. I'm not sure where you're trying to go with it.
Randomthot
Oops.... I'm afraid my karma ran over your dogma.
Subject: Re: Moral commercial transactions (was Libs & Post Office) Date: 4/15/98 9:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time LAWECON Message-id: <1998041513191400.JAA06083@ladder01.news.aol.com>
< In the meantime my assertion is that the air belongs to either everybody or nobody or both. We all have equal rights to use it. None of us has the right to deny that use to another (in the extreme this is called "suffocation"). In it's clean and natural state it's a free resource. Get it dirty enough and it becomes less free in the sense that you have to start exerting other resources to use it (e.g. a gas mask).
I understand the principles you are starting from but I believe your logic is flawed when you try to apply it the way you do. I'm not sure where you're trying to go with it.
Randomthot>>
I'm sorry that you feel that I'm "talking down" to you, but I think that the above simply proves that we are at least "talking past" each other. Let me try it once more:
(1) If a good or resource is scarce there must be property rights in the good or resource to determine who can use it. [I'm not going to repeat the proof of this in my previous post.] According to everything you've implied [although you now contradict yourself in the above passage] clean air is a scarce resource in this society at this point in time. If it weren't scarce, we wouldn't be having policy debates over air pollution.
(2) Asserting that property rights in a scarce good or resource are common or that "no one" should own the scarce good or resource results in the use of that good or resource in ways that no one desires. When there was "common pasture" attached to villages, all the villagers crowded this pasture with as many of their livestock as they physically could fit on it, quickly ruining it for future use. This is the "Tragedy of the Commons"
(3) You, in fact, implicitly recognize that what you are advocating isn't common ownership or nonownership - since you aren't willing to allow anyone to use the resource as they want. The logical implication of what you are arguing for is that there must be a person or an entity that can enforce your preferences as to the use of the scarce resource. You just simply refuse to explicitly come out and say it. [If to point out the implications of what you are saying is "calling you a communist," tough.] Your Total Recall/Mars example is a good one. In that example the ruler of Mars owned the air. In this world the government owns the air. I think that may be a bad idea, given what the government routinely does with the other resources it owns [vide the book Playing God In Yellowstone as to what it has done with the national parks].
(4) Like most people who approve of government ownership of a particular resource, you do so because you believe that the government will somehow follow the policy you advocate, even though it has absolutely no incentive to do so. The incentive of the government is to cultivate support of various "interests" who can supply it with votes and money. You can do neither. The interests who can supply it with votes and money manufacturer automobiles, run factories, manage unions, etc. - guess what they'll want done with your scarce clean air.
My basic point regarding the above is simple. It is both unproductive and self-delusive to imagine that an appeal to an "environmentalism" outside human wants or to communal dreams of us all happily sharing scarce resources is going to supply a solution to a hard problem. I do not deny that the problem is hard. I do deny that it is "special" in such a way that it justifies the readoption of the intellectual fallacies that it has taken a couple of hundred years and numerous wars to rid ourselves of. It appears to me that this is exactly what you advocate. How am I wrong?
Craig Bolton
"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer
Subject: Re: Moral commercial transactions (was Libs & Post Office) Date: 4/16/98 1:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time Randomthot Message-id: <1998041605221900.BAA25773@ladder03.news.aol.com>
Law,
I guess maybe we are talking past each other. That's certainly a more civilized way to put it anyway. I do thank you for continuing the discussion and if I offended you in the past I apologize. I have no desire to have you as an enemy, particularly since in any random crowd of people arguing politics we would surely be allies.
Now back to the issue... I have no argument with your general analysis of monopoly resource issues or whatever you want to call it. It's just too bad that none of your analysis or examples apply to this problem. In the first place I've noticed that none of your analogies "stick". They all inevitably fail in some fundamental and important respect. For example, the public grazing lands in your previous example can be easily privatized because individual fields can be marked and fenced establishing boundaries of ownership. The land isn't going to slide out from underneath you and slither into the next county overnight. As another example you previously cited electric, cable TV, and telephone utilities. Problem here is that these are the product of human industry.
So the real question is, "Is clean air a scarce resource?". For the sake of argument let's say "yes". But I want to point out that it's only scarce if you make it dirty. In it's natural state it's a truly free resource assuming that we still have enough trees around to process the CO2 from animals (like us) back into O2.
Then the next question is "Who should own or control it?" One person? Many competing persons? The government? Everybody? Nobody? Let's look at these one at a time.
One person: Who? How would this person acquire the rights to the atmosphere? How far would those rights extend? Could this person demand payment from every person on the planet for the license to breathe? Demand payment for the right to pollute? Would there be a motivation to keep it clean? What would this motive be exactly?
Many competing individuals: Same problems as above with the addition of how would you be able to sequester "my" air from "your" air? How would you distribute it? Geometrically? Partial pressures?
Everybody &/or Nobody : The "Tragedy of the Commons" as you so eloquently state it. Physically makes the most sense, however. Recognizes the fact that you can't really separate "yours" from "mine" in any meaningful sense.
Government: Acknowledges the physical facts. Can't deny the theoretical problems you point out, but in defense, the air is cleaner since enviro laws have taken effect. Practically speaking it's the only way to have ANY control over the situation even if it's not ideal. If the controls weren't effective then why do industry groups lobby so hard against them?
Sigh... Maybe what we have to do is go back and look again at what makes clean air a scarce resource. There is undoubtedly a cost associated with keeping it clean. This is analogous to the cost of producing electricity, for example. The question becomes one of allocating that cost. First, who produces clean air? My answer would be anyone who incurs a cost for not making it dirty. This would include mfr's that install pollution controls in their plants and products (such as auto emissions controls).
Who's the customer? Anyone who breathes, I guess. Who pays? We all do. If the laws require the pollution controls then the market neatly apportions the cost automatically. It's just naturally included in the cost of using the items which without the controls would pollute or create pollution as a byproduct of their manufacture.
Is it a perfect solution? No. It involves the government and I understand the problems with that but do you have a better idea? If you do then please tell me because all I've heard so far is a lot of objections coupled with examples that don't fit the situation. Translate some of that ivory tower economics into a practical answer that doesn't involve gas masks, please.
With all due respect Randomthot
Oops.... I'm afraid my karma ran over your dogma.
Subject: Re: Moral commercial transactions (was Libs & Post Office) Date: 4/16/98 4:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time LAWECON Message-id: <1998041620173300.QAA18995@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>Law, > > I guess maybe we are talking past each other. That's certainly a more >civilized way to put it anyway. I do thank you for continuing the discussion >and if I offended you in the past I apologize. I have no desire to have you >as an enemy, particularly since in any random crowd of people arguing politics >we would surely be allies.
Random,
I don't want to further irritate the situation, but I'm not in this to find allies. I'm in this to find truth. According to my methodological presumptions, truth arises from subjecting theories [hypotheses, speculations, principles, whatever you want to call them] to criticism. The party advancing the theory is not usually the best criticizer of the theory. What I find disturbing about your approach is not that you are unfriendly or insulting, but that you seem to feel that characterizing an argument or person advancing an argument says something substantive about the argument.
It doesn't. It is irrelevant whether the person presenting the argument is a "scummy lawyer" or whether the argument is a part of "ivory tower economic theorizing". If the argument is invalid, show where it is invalid. If you can't do that, don't result to insult to cover up the deficit.
> Now back to the issue... I have no argument with your general analysis of >monopoly resource issues or whatever you want to call it.
What I want to call it is "common pool resource." A common pool resource is a resource which has the characteristic that ownership of the resource cannot be easily divided. All of the examples we've been talking about are common pool resources to one degree or another. An implication of a resource being a common pool resource is that it must be owned by a "monopoly" owner - who apportions its use [but not its ownership] among competing end users, not all of whom can use the resource for all their various purposes. .
"Common pool resources" are common pool resources only if and until it is not technologically or economically feasible to divide ownership of them.
that none of your analysis or examples apply to this problem. In the first >place I've noticed that none of your analogies "stick". They all inevitably >fail in some fundamental and important respect. For example, the public >grazing lands in your previous example can be easily privatized because >individual fields can be marked and fenced establishing boundaries of >ownership. The land isn't going to slide out from underneath you and slither >into the next county overnight.>>
Despite the fact that land doesn't have this one characteristic, it was considered to be a common pool resource by many Native American tribes and by medieval peasants. Private ownership [fee title] of land was a technological innovation that, in some instances, seemed absurd to these people.
< As another example you previously cited >electric, cable TV, and telephone utilities. Problem here is that these are >the product of human industry.>>
Another problem we're having is that you seem to attach some importance to the term "natural". I don't. The rules I mentioned in my past post apply to all goods and resources regardless of their origin. Indeed, most resources traditionally have their origin in "nature," but that really doesn't matter.
<> So the real question is, "Is clean air a scarce resource?". For the sake >of argument let's say "yes". But I want to point out that it's only scarce if >you make it dirty. In it's natural state it's a truly free resource assuming >that we still have enough trees around to process the CO2 from animals (like >us) back into O2.>>
Because something is more usable for certain purposes in its "natural state" than it is after it has been put to certain uses does not mean that it is "free" in its natural state. It is free only if the amount of it available exceeds the amount that people want at a zero price. Clean crank case oil is more usable to lubricate an internal combustion engine than used crank case oil, but it is not "free" because it hasn't been used.
<>Then the next question is "Who should own or control it?" One person? Many >competing persons? The government? Everybody? Nobody? Let's look at these >one at a time.>>
The question is not realistic. If the resource is a common pool resource it will be owned by a monopoly owner. It can't be owned by "nobody" or "everybody" [see my last post] and the fact that it is a common pool resource means it can't be owned by many people.
<> One person: Who? How would this person acquire the rights to the >atmosphere? How far would those rights extend? Could this person demand >payment from every person on the planet for the license to breathe? Demand >payment for the right to pollute? Would there be a motivation to keep it >clean? What would this motive be exactly?>>
To say that a person or entity "owns" a resource means that that person or entity controls the use of his resource. The federal government today owns the air over the U.S. You can tell it owns the air because it dictates how and under what conditions it will be used. The only reason the government doesn't demand payment for using its air is that it doesn't want to be overthrown [unless, of course, one wants to claim that the taxes we all pay are such a payment]. In gest I use to propose that everyone have a valve installed on their windpipe at birth. If they didn't pay their taxes then the government could turn off the valve. People would then, undoubtedly, rationalize that: "If it weren't for the government, how would we breathe?" This was long before the current popularity of "environmentalism". The examples doesn't seem so funny today.
The government does demand payment for the right to pollute, in fact there are are not only sliding scale taxes or assessment for certain types of pollution, but some jurisdictions sell "pollution rights" that are traded between firms.
What is the government's motivation for keeping its air clean? Certainly, it doesn't have to worry about maximizing the economic value of its air, since it could care less if people would prefer and be willing to pay for a higher use - if you can tax for the money you need, you don't have to worry about peoples' demands.
> > Many competing individuals: Same problems as above with the addition of >how would you be able to sequester "my" air from "your" air? How would you >distribute it? Geometrically? Partial pressures?
As I said before, if I knew I'd be rich. However, that I don't know and that no one knows today doesn't mean that there is no such solution.
> > Everybody &/or Nobody : The "Tragedy of the Commons" as you so eloquently >state it. Physically makes the most sense, however. Recognizes the fact that >you can't really separate "yours" from "mine" in any meaningful sense. > > Government: Acknowledges the physical facts. Can't deny the theoretical >problems you point out, but in defense, the air is cleaner since enviro laws >have taken effect. Practically speaking it's the only way to have ANY control >over the situation even if it's not ideal. If the controls weren't effective >then why do industry groups lobby so hard against them? >
First, government ownership is NOT the only way to have "ANY control".
Monopoly ownership is dictated by the technological constraints on dividing ownership of common pool resources, government ownership is not.
Second, I am somewhat surprised that you are happy with the current circumstance. Would you also argue, when the government outlaws the right to distribute first class mail by nongovernmental service suppliers, that "well, at least the government supplies mail delivery - no matter how bad it may be"?
> Sigh... Maybe what we have to do is go back and look again at what makes >clean air a scarce resource. There is undoubtedly a cost associated with >keeping it clean. This is analogous to the cost of producing electricity, for >example. The question becomes one of allocating that cost.
Once again we are not communicating. To the extent there is a market for clean air, there are competitive bidders for clean air. There is not some arbitrary standard of "cleaness" set that must be met regardless of consumer preferences and costs of meeting that standard. The level of "pollution" of the air [that is the level of its use as a dump for foreign substances] is determined by market bidding.
First, who >produces clean air? My answer would be anyone who incurs a cost for not >making it dirty. This would include mfr's that install pollution >controls in their plants and products (such as auto emissions controls).
>Who's the customer? Anyone who breathes, I guess. Who pays? We all do.
Again, I'm not understanding what you're saying. If the notion is that certain goods rise in price if certain types and levels of pollution controls are mandated, then that is probably true. But the issue is not whether that is true, but whether that is the way that the resource [clean air] should be controlled [allocated].
A "consumer" in the economic sense, incidentally, isn't just "someone who consumes" but someone who has "effective demand" for a scarce good or resource - that is, who wants some of it and is willing and able to give up other things to get it by purchasing it or offerring to purchase it. The problem in this situation, as with "public education," "public housing," "public parks," etc. is that the effective marginal price [note, "price," not "cost" ] to the consumer of air that is one degree cleaner is zero. Hence, "consumers" rationally demand absolutely clean air.
> If >the laws require the pollution controls then the market neatly apportions the >cost automatically. It's just naturally included in the cost of using the >items which without the controls would pollute or create pollution as a >byproduct of their manufacture.
So the optimal production of pollution is zero? No? Then what is the optimal amount of pollution? How do you tell without a "market test"?
> Is it a perfect solution? No. It involves the government and I understand >the problems with that but do you have a better idea? If you do then please >tell me because all I've heard so far is a lot of objections coupled with >examples that don't fit the situation. Translate some of that ivory tower >economics into a practical answer that doesn't involve gas masks, please.
O.K., this is basically the "economic calculation under socialism" problem all over again. There are things that can be done to get near to an optimal solution, but no overall answer without a market. One thing that can be done to get near to an optimal solution is what I already mentioned above - create transferable "pollution licenses". Then if your group want absolutely "clean air" it simply outbids some other industrial user for the licenses to pollute and eats them.
This does not, however, resolve the issue of the optimal amount of such licenses. The only way you get a solution to that problem is to allow private ownership of the resource and competitive bidding for all uses of the resource.
Craig Bolton
"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer
Subject: Re: Moral commercial transactions (was Libs & Post Office) Date: 4/18/98 1:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time Randomthot Message-id: <1998041805315700.BAA20485@ladder01.news.aol.com>
< Random,
I don't want to further irritate the situation, but I'm not in this to find allies.>
Oh, really? Well, until you do then you are forever doomed to life on the political fringe. This doesn't mean reshaping your opinions to fit other people but a bit of diplomacy and an honest consideration of other opinions would serve your interests.
As am I.
It doesn't. It is irrelevant whether the person presenting the argument is a "scummy lawyer" or whether the argument is a part of "ivory tower economic theorizing". If the argument is invalid, show where it is invalid. If you can't do that, don't result to insult to cover up the deficit. >
That would mean SO much more to me if you weren't just as guilty. In your world there seems to be two kinds of people -- anarchists such as yourself, and socialists with nothing in-between.
Randomthot
Oops.... I'm afraid my karma ran over your dogma.
Subject: Re: Moral commercial transactions (was Libs & Post Office) Date: 4/18/98 1:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time Randomthot Message-id: <1998041805534900.BAA20827@ladder03.news.aol.com>
< An implication of a resource being a common pool resource is that it must be owned by a "monopoly" owner - who apportions its use [but not its ownership] among competing end users, not all of whom can use the resource for all their various purposes. . "Common pool resources" are common pool resources only if and until it is not technologically or economically feasible to divide ownership of them. >
< Many competing individuals: Same problems as above with the addition of how would you be able to sequester "my" air from "your" air? How would you distribute it? Geometrically? Partial pressures?>
As I said before, if I knew I'd be rich. However, that I don't know and that no one knows today doesn't mean that there is no such solution.>
OK. So you admit that at the present level of technology and development of economic theory, air is still a common pool resource.
But you can't divide it so it is still a monopoly situation. The question then becomes who will control the resource.
< The only way you get a solution to that problem is to allow private ownership of the resource and competitive bidding for all uses of the resource.>
WHO??? I keep asking you that and you never answer except in the negative.
I appreciate the logic of your argument but until you can tell me who the monopoly owner should be or alternately, how you can divide it up then the point is moot. It's like advancing a solution to a problem that involves time travel or exceeding the speed of light. Nice in theory but it doesn't get you anywhere.
Look-- if what you really want is NO pollution controls then just have the honesty to say so and don't try to hide behind economic theory. Then explain how no control is better than imperfect, politically determined control by government.
Randomthot
Oops.... I'm afraid my karma ran over your dogma.
Subject: Re: Moral commercial transactions (was Libs & Post Office) Date: 4/18/98 2:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time Randomthot Message-id: <1998041806122500.CAA22126@ladder03.news.aol.com>
< If the laws require the pollution controls then the market neatly apportions the cost automatically. It's just naturally included in the cost of using the items which without the controls would pollute or create pollution as a byproduct of their manufacture.>
So the optimal production of pollution is zero? No? Then what is the optimal amount of pollution? How do you tell without a "market test"?>
The optimal point doesn't have to be zero. But the problem is that regardless of how much or little I'm willing to pay for clean air or, to put it alternately, how much or little pollution you or I are willing to put up with we're both stuck with the same result. I can't have cleaner air than you no matter how much I'm willing to pay for it.
The market test occurs in the political arena. Since we all collectively share in the benefits it naturally follows that we will be forced to collectively decide how clean is clean and how much we are willing to pay for that in enforcement costs and higher prices for goods and services due to pollution abatement technologies.
Randomthot
Oops.... I'm afraid my karma ran over your dogma.
Subject: Re: Moral commercial transactions (was Libs & Post Office) Date: 4/18/98 9:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time TMA68 Message-id: <1998041813295300.JAA10329@ladder01.news.aol.com>
The following is a recent post by Dan Sullivan, originally posted in the "sci.econ" newsgroup. I thought it would provide a unique, insightful and provocative jolt to the current debate between Randomthot and Lawecon.
>Solow's statement is self-evidently false. The world can not >"get along without natural resources" because everything in the >world comes from natural resources. There isn't anything else.
>The fact that economists do not find Solow's statement >incredible, prompts such comments as:
> The problem is, of course, that not only is economics > bankrupt but it has always been nothing more than politics > in disguise ... economics is a form of brain damage.
> -- Hazel > Henderson
>What else could it be except brain damage?
Integrity damage. Macauley wrote that if there were a large pecuniary interest in denying the existence of gravity, the most obvious facts would fall into dispute.
Consider what it would be like to study and profess political science under monarchy, and you get some idea of what it is like to study and profess economics under systems of monopoly, whether right or left.
While averting their eyes from privileges that would only get them in trouble with university alumni (who are the privileged elite faction of the right), or with their state funding sources (who are the privileged elite faction of the left), we have fallen into an Alice-In-Wonderland system of chasing paper and ignoring actual wealth.
Thus, output of wealth is discussed as income of money; putting paper in banks is called saving, while buying up reserves of real wealth, such as canned goods and hardware, is called spending; people who buy up things without improving them are called "investors" instead of "aquisitors"; and we are regularly treated to such oxymoronic phrases as "real estate in- dustry" and "capital employs labor."
I tried to get a job at the real estate industry, but I didn't have the necessary skill to produce a purple mountain's majesty. So, I went home and at least found some part time employment. My set of socket wrenches employed me to replace the power steering pump on my van. Now that I have a work- ing van, I am hoping it will employ me tomorrow by taking me to a friend's house, or else I will find myself unemployed by my truck, as I was yesterday when the steering pump leaked.
To see what nonsense we speak, all we have to do is replace the abstract words with concrete examples of what they actually mean. Even if the tools are not little socket wrenches, but big factories, it is the people who employ the factories to make things. Whether we rent the capital and keep the pro- duce, or take a wage and let the capital owner keep the produce, or engage in a "sharecropping" arrangement is beside the point.
Not beside the point, however, is whether land, or the state title to land, is really capital, or whether various other law-created properties are really
capital. Was the extra $700 per car that the big three were getting in the seventies due to import tariffs and quotas capital, or privilege?
"Why capitalized privilege!" said the Mad Hatter. "No, privileged capital" said the March Hare.
"No, no," cried Alice. "If there is land, labor and capital, how can land be capital?"
"Because we have capitalized it!" replied the Hatter.
"Yes, and it would be labor if we laborized it," chimed the Hare.
"Well," mused Alice, "If you can capitalize land and make it capital, can you landize capital and make it land?"
"We never!" scowled the Hatter. Only Marx would do such a sacreligious thing!"
"Karl Marx?" asked Alice.
"No, landmarks! replied the Hatter, who was rapidly becoming impatient with Alice's questions."
"But how do you turn land into capital?" Alice pressed.
"By using it," replied the Hatter.
"Or not using it," added the Hare.
Alice pondered. "It must be some kind of zen thing."
"It is, replied the Hatter. I took some land and farmed it. Well, I didn't really farm it, but I ate some food that was growing there. Now that land is my capital, which I own forever, because I have used it for farming, or for eating.
"And," said the Hare, I took some land and *didn't* farm it or eat from it. I am keeping it in its pure, natural state for future generations, and so I own it forever, too."
"Sound to me like you are keeping it *from* future generations."
"I am keeping if from them for them," said the Hare.
"Suppose they don't want you to keep it from them for them?"
"Well, it isn't their decision, because I am the one who didn't use the land. It is now my land, and I decide what to do with it and why!" said the Hare, who was now becomming as mad as the Hatter.
"Well, they didn't use it either," said Alice.
"But I didn't use it FIRST!" snapped the Hare triumphently, as if he had settled the issue once and for all.
Alice, who didn't like arguing, tried to go along with the idea. She mused, "Well, I use the moon for looking at and for making wishes on and for all manor of things. Can I claim the moon?
"No, no, my dear," said the Hatter, who was elated that Alice was beginning to understand the logic of the thing. To own the moon you must use it up close. Besides, so many others have used the moon and made an issue of it that, if anything, it is their moon. You should be grateful that they don't make you pay rent for wishing on it. If you wished on MY land, I would certainly make you pay rent or else go wish on your own land. My land only has so many wishes, you know."
The Hare then had an idea. "Many people have declared that they have used the moon, but nobody I know of has claimed ownership of the moon by declaring that he has *not* used it! Perhaps Mole Mouse could claim the moon because he never comes to the surface.
If he is the first non-user to claim the moon, he can turn it into a mole mouse preserve, and keep it for future generations of mole mice to not look at!"
"But how do I claim some land for myself," pined Alice?
"I'm afraid you are too late," said the Hatter. All the land that anyone knows about is already being either used or not used, and so it is all owned. You would have to buy some land."
"Well, how much does land cost?"
"I have some land that I bought for a penny a week ago," said the Hatter.
"I would be happy to give you a penny for it."
"But that was a week ago. It must be worth two pennies today."
By now, the hare was off searching, or not searching, for the mole mouse, to tell him, or not tell him, how he could own the moon by not using it. Alice was left to negotiate with the Hatter over the price of his land.
"Alright, then, I will give you two pennies."
"I don't want to sell it then."
"Then why did you tell me what it was worth?" asked Alice.
"Because I didn't know what it was worth." said the Hatter.
"You told me it was worth two pennies," Alice argued.
"No," the Hatter said smugly, "You told me it was worth two pennies when you offered two pennies."
"But, if you don't want to sell it, why do you want me to tell you what it is worth?"
"Well, I did want to sell it, but now it just doubled in value in less than a week. In less than two more weeks it will be worth a nickel!"
"Well, then, here is a nickel!" said Alice.
"Amazing!" said the Hatter, beaming. This is the best investment I ever made! In a week it went up in value from one penny to two, but in just this last minute it went up from two pennies to a nickel. In an hour it will be worth several dollars!"
"So, you won't sell me land because I offered too little?" asked Alice.
"No, because you offered too much! You don't understand anything about economics, do you?"
"I guess not." mumbled Alice. Then she became quiet and began to think for a while. However, she didn't really get any ideas until the Hare came back. Looking at the moon, the Hare told Alice that he hoped he could find Mole Mouse soon, because all the dry land on earth was already owned. This gave Alice an idea.
"What about the ocean?" asked Alice.
"It's wet," replied the Hatter.
"And wavey," added the Hare.
"But it isn't already owned, is it?"
"No, because it's wet," said the Hatter.
"And wavey," added the Hare.
"But, suppose I took fish food to the ocean and then pulled out a fish that had eaten my food?"
"Then that would be your fish!" the Hatter said decisively.
"But not my ocean?" asked Alice.
"You can't claim a whole ocean because of one fish. You can only claim the part of the ocean that your fish lived it."
"So, I will claim that!" said Alice gleefully.
"But you don't know what part your fish lived it," said the Hatter, because fish swim all around the ocean, and because the ocean also swims all aroung the fish. The water where you caught the fish isn't there any more. It's called currents, because the water that was currently where you caught the fish when you caught it is now currently somewhere else."
Then the Hare had another idea. What if we build walls and divide the ocean into separate tanks!"
"Yes!" exclaimed the Hatter. "Then the water wouldn't move around, and we could know which water we caught fish from, and can capi- talize the water!"
"Can you capitalize water? asked Alice.
"Why not?" asked the Hatter.
"You can also water capital," replied the Hare.
"Isn't that bad for the ocean?" asked Alice.
"Nonsense!" exclaimed the Hatter. "It is good for the ocean, because it will increase its value!"
"It will?" asked Alice. "Isn't it better for the ocean when the currents move from one place currently now to another place currently then?" She was proud of herself for getting that straight.
"No," said the Hatter, "Because everything is better when it is private property. Right now, the ocean has no value, because nobody owns it. But when we trap all those travelling currents into stagnant tanks, and make the ocean into property, it will have value. We created that value, and so it will be ours."
"I am confused," said Alice. "I already value the ocean."
"No," said the Hatter. "You cannot value the ocean because nobody owns it."
"What do you mean?" Asked Alice.
"Well, you just valued my land at a nickel, because I own it. When I own a piece of the ocean, you can value that too. See? It is good for you that I am going to own the ocean, because they you will be able to value it."
"But owning the ocean was my idea," said the Hare. It was really Alice's idea, but she was growing tired, and, after finding out that she didn't really value the ocean, figured she must not actually want it.
As whe wandered away she heard the Hatter trying to talk the Hare out of his, or rather her, ocean idea.
"Now, now," said the Hatter, "there is more ocean than you can possibly use."
"But I was going to *not* use it," protested the Hare, and I can *not* use the whole thing as easily as I can *not* use a little part."
As the bickering between the Hare and the Hatter drifted into the distance, Alice came upon the Cheshire National Bank.
Stay tooned for chapter next.
Dan Sullivan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geolibertarian Home Page ; Slavery ; The Corruption of Economics
Todd
Subject: Re: Moral commercial transactions (was Libs & Post Office) Date: 4/18/98 8:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time LAWECON Message-id: <1998041900060600.UAA11041@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Random,
This discussion is becoming fruitlessly repetitive, so I think I'll go do something more productive. However, let me suggest a few distinctions to you as a go out the door:
(1) If I own a watering hole, I can still allow you to have a drink and continue to own the watering hole. Ownership of the air is no different. To say that there has to be a monopoly OWNER of a common pool resource doesn't mean that there has to be just one CONSUMER of the resource.
(2) There is a lot of difference between pointing out the logical implication of another's positions and calling someone a lier of a profession of liers.
The first is a normal part of logical analysis and debate, and is countered by showing that such consequences don't logically follow. The second is a childish evasion of argument.
(3) Would you like to require the same test for ownership of auto factories, farms or, more generally, "the means of production" that you impose for ownership of the air - i.e., either tell me who the owner should be and how he's going to use the resource or I'm going to dismiss the argument? The question is not "who" owns these resources but what incentives that person faces [or don't face] for using them one way vs. another. A market firm faces the incentive of satisfying the consumer - the better they do so, the more profit they make. A government faces the incentive of ........[?]........
(4) If you think that the political process in this or any other country comprises a "market test" you need to consult a good dictionary - or go read the essay on "Representative Government?" in the libertarian library. If there is no real difference between resource allocation by a representative government and resource allocation by a market, then what, exactly, is nonfunctional about socialism? Wouldn't we have the same outputs of shoes, cheese and Swiss Steak if the government owned all resources and allocated them, as we now have under market allocation? So, if you're right, what's so great about private ownership and markets? [Opps, there I go again being logical and raising unpleasant questions about the implications of your arguments - questions that imply that your views justify socialism. I'm so sorry. It is much better to be "nice," accept that all arguments that come out of the mouth of those who are card carrying members of the LP MUST BE libertarian arguments, and not actually worry about logical implications. Otherwise one might end up on the "political fringe" - unlike the mainstream LP.]
Craig Bolton
"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer
Subject: Re: Moral commercial transactions (was Libs & Post Office) Date: 4/18/98 10:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time Randomthot Message-id: <1998041902221800.WAA26104@ladder01.news.aol.com>
< Random,
This discussion is becoming fruitlessly repetitive, so I think I'll go do something more productive. However, let me suggest a few distinctions to you as a go out the door:
(1) If I own a watering hole, I can still allow you to have a drink and continue to own the watering hole. Ownership of the air is no different. To say that there has to be a monopoly OWNER of a common pool resource doesn't mean that there has to be just one CONSUMER of the resource. >
So you want to have one person (company, corporation, whatever) own the entire atmosphere that has to be shared by almost 5 billion people? I suppose when someone decides to try to buy everyone out to get control of the air we'll just deal with that.
<(2) There is a lot of difference between pointing out the logical implication of another's positions and calling someone a lier of a profession of liers. The first is a normal part of logical analysis and debate, and is countered by showing that such consequences don't logically follow. The second is a childish evasion of argument.>
Right. And I pointed out the logical implications of your argument and showed how it was unworkable technologically and therefore unavailable for use. It doesn't matter how good or bad the theory is if you can't use the result. And we could characterize your evasion of the argument as..... what?
<(3) Would you like to require the same test for ownership of auto factories, farms or, more generally, "the means of production" that you impose for ownership of the air - i.e., either tell me who the owner should be and how he's going to use the resource or I'm going to dismiss the argument? The question is not "who" owns these resources but what incentives that person faces [or don't face] for using them one way vs. another. A market firm faces the incentive of satisfying the consumer - the better they do so, the more profit they make. A government faces the incentive of ........[?]........>
No. And I never said so and you know it. And since when did the atmosphere become a "means of production" equivalent to a factory? I want you to tell me either WHO will own it, HOW that person would attain ownership, or alternately how ownership would be divided. Since you basically admit that you have no idea how that could happen the rest of your argument is just ...
ahem... hot air.
<(4) If you think that the political process in this or any other country comprises a "market test" you need to consult a good dictionary - or go read the essay on "Representative Government?" in the libertarian library.>
It is a market... a market for ideas, morals, and values not expressible or poorly expressed in economic terms. The economic marketplace is where the price to kill someone may be determined. The political marketplace is where we as a society determine that such a transaction is unacceptable at any price. Does it work perfectly? Of course not, but what does?
Otherwise one might end up on the "political fringe" - unlike the mainstream LP.] Craig Bolton>
Why does it always have to be all or nothing with you? If one person DID own the atmosphere then the implications would be just about the same as if one person owned all the land. The person would be king of the world... an absolute ruler. Are you saying that global monarchy is equivalent to anarchism? You've taken a perfectly good principle and stretched into a domain where it can no longer function. Give it up.
Randomthot
Oops.... I'm afraid my karma ran over your dogma.
Subject: Re: Moral commercial transactions (was Libs & Post Office) Date: 4/19/98 11:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time LAWECON Message-id: <1998041915003300.LAA11776@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>>Give it up.
Randomthot<
Thank you. I have. And I declare you the winner in the hot air competition.
Craig Bolton
"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer
Subject: Re: Moral commercial transactions (was Libs & Post Office) Date: 4/16/98 1:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time Randomthot Message-id: <1998041605484401.BAA10135@ladder01.news.aol.com>
< 4) Like most people who approve of government ownership of a particular resource, you do so because you believe that the government will somehow follow the policy you advocate, even though it has absolutely no incentive to do so. The incentive of the government is to cultivate support of various "interests" who can supply it with votes and money. You can do neither. The interests who can supply it with votes and money manufacturer automobiles, run factories, manage unions, etc. - guess what they'll want done with your scarce clean air.
My basic point regarding the above is simple. It is both unproductive and self-delusive to imagine that an appeal to an "environmentalism" outside human wants or to communal dreams of us all happily sharing scarce resources is going to supply a solution to a hard problem. I do not deny that the problem is hard. I do deny that it is "special" in such a way that it justifies the readoption of the intellectual fallacies that it has taken a couple of hundred years and numerous wars to rid ourselves of. It appears to me that this is exactly what you advocate. How am I wrong?>
I don't know that you are wrong. But frankly, you haven't supplied a solution -- just objections to what I freely admit is an imperfect plan. For what it's worth, the special interests haven't been able to keep environmental laws off the books. We have much cleaner running automobiles than 30 years ago -- technological process forced by the government. You may decry the method but you can't deny the results. I can remember pictures of big city residents who had to wear masks out of doors when a temperature inversion hit. When's the last time you saw that? I've read about Lake Erie having so much crap floating on it that it actually caught fire. I don't know if you can fish in it yet but it's a lot better than it was.
There were good reasons for the laws. The free market in all it's intricacy and wisdom was incapable of addressing these problems because there was no profit motive to drive them. That motive had to be externally supplied. Fortunately, big business doesn't always get it's way. Quite often it does, but not always, thank god. It's all well and fine to argue theory as to why something won't work but I don't have to argue theory.
Since we have empirical evidence that it works at least to some degree, then obviously your theory is at least partially wrong. Now if you want to talk about campaign finance reform.... well, that's another story.
Randomthot
Oops.... I'm afraid my karma ran over your dogma.
Subject: Re: Moral commercial transactions (was Libs & Post Office) Date: 4/16/98 11:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time LAWECON Message-id: <1998041615190900.LAA21864@ladder03.news.aol.com>
HELP. I've typed out a response to Randomthot twice and had this )(*(*&& AOL software eat the results. Will someone e-mail me on some off line way to compose a response???!!! Craig Bolton
"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer
Subject: Re: Moral commercial transactions (was Libs & Post Office) Date: 4/16/98 9:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time Randomthot Message-id: <1998041701370800.VAA28566@ladder01.news.aol.com>
< HELP. I've typed out a response to Randomthot twice and had this )(*(*&& AOL software eat the results. Will someone e-mail me on some off line way to compose a response???!!!>
Just open up Notepad at the same time as AOL. Copy and paste the post you want to respond to from AOL into a blank Notepad document. Respond, criticize, analyze, and flame as you see fit within the Notepad doc. If AOL crashes or you get knocked offline it doesn't matter as long as your whole machine doesn't crash. Then when you're ready just hit the "Reply" button and copy & paste your Notepad doc into the Reply screen. Hit send and you're done.
You're welcome.
Randomthot
Oops.... I'm afraid my karma ran over your dogma.
Subject: Re: Moral commercial transactions (was Libs & Post Office) Date: 4/16/98 11:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time LAWECON Message-id: <1998041703112300.XAA11471@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Thank you. And, ya, I've been doing something similar with Eudora. It seems awfully clumsy however. My AOL software seems to indicate that you can read the messages in this forum offline. But when I select this folder and punch the button nothing happens. I've also set up a flash session, but all that gets downloaded is the incoming mail. Whine.
Craig Bolton
"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer
Subject: Re: Moral commercial transactions (was Libs & Post Office) Date: 4/13/98 7:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time CheffJeff Message-id: <1998041311414200.HAA29602@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>
I think middlemen are extremely important and valuable. (See Presbyte's record album post for an example)
<. You apparently believe that "honest work" should be the highest value, with the same logical implications. I put it to you that this is simply unlibertarian. >>
Honest work is unlibertarian. Hmmm. Maybe this is why I have a hard time understanding Libertarians that want to demonstrate in front of the Post Office on April 15, yet post their request for help from a computer with a .gov extension. And maybe this is why I haven't helped with this since about 1985.
Actually, I believe that honesty and hard work are what's necessary to create values (money, stuff, love, knowledge, clean environment, etc.). The way to get there is to, believe it or not, focus on DIShonesties and eliminate them, one by one. And, of course, this requires hard work. (Not the kind of "hard work" Clinton talks about when he says "I've been working hard on this issue, for the children.")
Jeff
Subject: Re: Moral commercial transactions (was Libs & Post Office) Date: 4/13/98 10:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time LAWECON Message-id: <1998041314134900.KAA10463@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Jeff,
Let's step "outside the box," for a minute. No one is disparaging "honest work." What I am saying is that "honest work" is neither the only source of economic value, nor should it be. Another example, since the middleman one didn't strike home: Your grandfather is a crazy old coot who has, during the last 20 years of his ample lifetime, collected hubcaps. He regretfully "passes away" leaving you with his collection of 10,000 hubcaps. You and the rest of your community live on an island where it takes awhile for supplies to arrive from the mainland. [Can you tell that I'm making this up as I go along?] The local toughs decide that hubcaps are a gang status symbol and strip all of the cars on the island. Your hubcaps are suddenly transformed from junk to a valuable salable commodity.
Now in the above example you did nothing to earn the economic reward. Is that important? Or is it important that your fellow islanders got what they wanted and were willing to pay for when they wouldn't have got it otherwise? Make no mistake, Jeff, these are not trivial questions. These are EXACTLY the questions that separates those who are willing to let markets function regardless of "moral worth" from those who demand that only merit [as they define it, not as the consumer defines it] is rewarded. These are EXACTLY the central questions that Hayek deals in in many of his writings when he considers the distinction between the morality suitable to the tribe and the morality suitable to a mass society of mutually anonymous individuals.
Craig Bolton
"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer
Subject: Re: Moral commercial transactions (was Libs & Post Office) Date: 4/11/98 5:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time Presbyte Message-id: <1998041121271500.RAA13494@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>>> I wasn't really looking for a copier and wouldn't have paid much more for it anyway. So we both got something we wanted. That is, no one produced something for nothing and no one got something for nothing. OK? >>> -Jeff
All well and good, but when your down-on-his-luck Elvis impersonator offered to sell you something of such obvious worth for practically nothing, when he so obviously needed the money, I'm wondering if your first impression wasn't to try to point him to someone who would pay more of what the item was worth.
You weren't morally or legally obligated to do so, of course, especially if it would have taken too much time and effort on your part. But if I weren't in the market for something, and someone offered to sell it to me for far less than I knew the market demanded as a desperation move, my own habit is to avoid accumulation of more things and try to divert them to where they will do the most good. Now, had I a real desire or use for the item, THAT would have been a bit of a moral quandry for me. Of course, I assume your associate's item wasn't stolen goods. That's the first thing I think of when someone offers to sell me something of great worth for practically nothing.
About a year ago, my wife and I participated in a neighborhood "garage sale," which was especially well-timed, as we were moving to a new home within a month of the sale and needed to unload a lot of accumulated stuff.
Among the items we offered for sale, were some vintage black-vinyl record albums from the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Certain people came by and purchased some of the more interesting albums from us, acting as if they thought we were silly for "giving" them away at $1 per platter. Hey, I was a disc jockey; I have some appreciation for what some of those items might be worth. But these days, I have little time or opportunity to go and haggle with used-record collectors, so the buyers at the garage sale were actually doing me a service by taking them away. Also, now that we live in the age of CDs, I could be fairly sure of getting $1 per platter for everything I had to sell. When black-vinyl was more common, the same albums might have fetched 25- of 50-cents per disc. In the end, the albums we didn't sell went to Goodwill, and we walked away with some good spending green. The people who bought our albums may have in turn resold them for more; I don't know, and I don't care. More power to them.
We kept the black vinyl albums that we personally loved, by the way. So if there is ever any collectible value in them, we'll realize at least some of it.
All's well that ends well...
-J
Subject: Re: Libertarians And The Post Office.
Date: 4/11/98 8:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time CheffJeff Message-id: <1998041112594000.IAA01683@ladder01.news.aol.com>
you also wrote:
>>
Why aren't we writing letters and mailing them through the Post Office?
Jeff
Subject: Re: Libertarians And The Post Office.
Date: 4/4/98 6:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time Presbyte Message-id: <1998040422150401.RAA19908@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>>>Are you implying that anyone who voluntarily allows him or herself to be overpaid is acting immorally?<< -randomthot
It is a good question. If someone stuffs money into your hand, should you refund an overpayment out of embarrassment or shame? If the price you ask is more than your own assessment of the value of the service or product, are you committing some form of fraud? And if so, how should that be rectified?
I'm interested in seeing if this line of inquiry goes anywhere, and where it might lead. What thoughts do others have?
-J
Subject: Re: Libertarians And The Post Office.
Date: 4/4/98 11:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time LAWECON Message-id: <1998040503034101.WAA08216@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>
>
I really honestly must be missing something. Taking the general case first: Is each party to an arms length contract suppose to disclose all knowledge he has about the subject matter of the contract to the other party? Isn't the investment in such specialized knowledge of who wants and is willing to pay what exactly the "product" of the vast hords of "middlemen" in our society - a very important hord economically.
If I go into a used bookstore and see a copy of Von Mises' Epistemological Problems of Economic in pristine condition for $20, do I have a moral duty to go up to the bookstore owner and say: "Hey, you obviously aren't aware of what you have here. If you just go to any libertarian newgroup and post an ad saying you have this item for $80 plus postage, you'd sell it immediately."
Do I have a duty not to buy the book at $20? Where did this duty come from and what is it based on?
How is employment different? If someone offers me a job to clean manhole lids at $100 an hour, am I morally obligated to say, "Oh, you're making a mistake.
I have no experience in cleaning manhole covers. But I do have a friend that has cleaned manhole covers for 20 years and will do it for $20 and hour and kiss your feet every morning for giving him such a pay raise." ? I don't think so, but if you do think so [if you think that we are each responsible for telling our counter party to a contract everything we know], then I'd like to hear more about this view [and just how far it goes].
Now I can see one argument to the contrary, if we are specifically talking about working for the government. The government sometimes [often] buys people's political loyalties as well as their labor services by giving them over priced jobs. It is called "patronage." If that is the point, then the argument makes sense. If that isn't the point, I'd appreciate some more clarification.
Craig Bolton
"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer
Subject: Re: Libertarians And The Post Office.
Date: 4/6/98 7:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time WhineyA Message-id: <1998040623173900.TAA17724@ladder03.news.aol.com>
I have no problem with people in the private sector being paid well,or sometimes,in my opinion,being overpaid. One example comes to mind is professional athletes. I must however admit, the paying public is willing to pay the high prices for tickets,souvenirs,and the like to allow these people to charge so much for their services. I don't think we have the same choice when it comes to gov't services or taxation. In the private sector,the employer has a choice to either pay for an individuals services,or look elsewhere. Even if there is a union involved, the management can arbitrate and negotiate over a contract. In the end,they can either sign the contract,or refuse it. The same goes for labor reps. When it comes to gov't sanctioned monopolies, the consumer has to accept whatever is handed down to him. In every service where other companies are allowed to compete with the USPS, they are eating their lunch. A prime example is parcel post. UPS has primarily taken that part of the mail over. Why;Because they provide a better service for less money by operating more efficiently. The only monopoly left in the Post Office is first class mail. If other companies were allowed to compete in this area, I feel the same would happen there. I don't know who to credit for saying, "You don't get paid what you are worth, you get paid what you negotiate," but I totally agree with this philosophy. It is just a sad shame that when gov't workers are overpaid,the consumer is forced to comply.
Bob
Subject: Re: Libertarians And The Post Office.
Date: 4/4/98 12:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time LAWECON Message-id: <1998040404153700.XAA17017@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Votes, protests, etc. may help, but until each person examines his own dishonesties and works to eliminate them, he's stuck in an unside down world of destruction and unhappiness.
Well rested and ready to kick butt, Jeff>
While I well understand your position, Jeff, I don't agree. Suppose that libertarians become a significant proportion of the population and all of them refuse to work for the government. If the government still is authorized to carry the mail and operate its various other bureaucracies and bureaus it will still continue to do so. [The government doesn't need there to be consumer demand for what it is doing - it thrusts what it is doing down people's throats and finances what it does by taxes.]
All that results from libertarians refusing to take government jobs and/or "benefits" is that the government has to pay even more to staff its various businesses, bureaus, etc.
The problem isn't that people work for the government, the problem is that the government is an employer. What you have to do is take the food away from the baby rather than quibbling over what the baby "produces" with the food [and we all know what that is]. Once people stop paying their taxes en mass, and otherwise quit obeying the government's commands that they obey and comply, there will be some change. There is no point in becoming violent about it: just say "no" and do your own thing.
Craig Bolton
"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer
Subject: Re: Libertarians And The Post Office.
Date: 4/4/98 10:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time CheffJeff Message-id: <1998040414230501.JAA12091@ladder03.news.aol.com>
someone asked:
>
Well, I don't really know about selling stamps, because I was a computer operator/programmer, and before that, a Mail Processing Equipment Mechanic.
The stressful thing about government work (besides being immoral) is there is no profit incentive. This brings on unusual decisions from the top heavy management. Your job is no longer to serve the "customer"----it's to influence politicians to steal as much money from real workers and funnel it to you--what a worthless purpose in life.
someone else said:
>
One can't be an employer if no one will choose to be employed. Individual choice has power. Each of us either supplies the evil ones with our work or we don't. Pretty simple choice to me.
and...
There is no point in becoming violent about it: just say "no" and do your own thing. >>
Agreed. And paying taxes is (indirectly) giving your work to the government.
It's harder not to do this one, but still possible to reduce their take.
more:
< Suppose that libertarians become a significant proportion of the population and all of them refuse to work for the government. If the government still is authorized to carry the mail and operate its various other bureaucracies and bureaus it will still continue to do so. [The government doesn't need there to be consumer demand for what it is doing - it thrusts what it is doing down people's throats and finances what it does by taxes.] >>
Ostracism. THEY NEED YOU, you don't need them. The "government," as you call it, is not some "thing"; it is individuals making decisions. And being a "libertarian" isn't necessary to choose not to work for government individuals. Just last night I talked with another former USPS woman who is a diehard Democrat. She quit two weks ago after 9 years because she said she was dying there. Amazing, because that's the description I usually use when discussing my reasons for quiting. A living death. Pathetic behavior.
continued next post...
Subject: Re: Libertarians And The Post Office.
Date: 3/24/98 12:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time Randomthot Message-id: <1998032404032600.XAA21143@ladder01.news.aol.com>
At least partially thanx to the US post Office I no longer have a car.
Without going into great detail just let me say I found myself a couple payments behind on my car note. I worked a deal with the bank to prevent repossession and promptly sent them a check. A couple of weeks later I happened to be looking out the window as the repossessors drove away with my car. About a month later I got a nice X-mas card from some company down in Pennsylvania. Inside the card was my car payment. The stamp hadn't even been cancelled.
So now I'm hoofing it and I owe almost $5,000 for a car I no longer have the pleasure of driving.
Needless to say important mail goes by UPS or FedEx from now on.
Randomthot
Does the noise in my head bother you?
Subject: Re: Libertarians And The Post Office.
Date: 3/25/98 8:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time CheffJeff Message-id: <1998032512550900.HAA07586@ladder01.news.aol.com>
You know why the PO is raising the price of stamps, again?
Because they need more signs that say: "This window closed."
---Johnny Carson
Subject: Re: Libertarians And The Post Office.
Date: 3/29/98 2:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time Presbyte Message-id: <1998032906585200.BAA25250@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Have you heard the very entertaining commercials from one of the carriers (Fed Ex I believe), with John ("Gomez Addams") Astin as a dizy postal employee who, in answer to questions similar to Dedleedave's, ultimately admits that the Post Office does not guarantee delivery within the publicized window, nor does it provide a means for tracking transport and delivery of your packages, nor does it deliver all over the world? The obvious moral: You get what you pay for.
So, there are apparently at least two sides of the story.
-J
this website copyright scars publications and design. All rights reserved. No material may be reprinted without express permission from the author.
this page was downloaded to your computer