Re: Re: money and health

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

In a message dated 1/13/04 2:18:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Well, suppose you are a farmer. You are in competition with other

> farmers. Some of them are the ones destined to become Big Agro. They

> want your land. So, they for alliances with the railroads to avoid your

> town, and force you to deliver further.

This was one of the policies of the railroads, according to D.

Rockefeller, fellow philanthropist and robber barron:

" A public rate was made and collected by the railroad companies, but

so far as my knowledge extends was seldom retained in full; a portion of it was

repaid to the shipper as a rebate. By this method the real rate of freight

which any shipper paid was not known by his competitors, nor by other

railroads, the amount being a matter of bargain with the carrying companies. "

Now, why shouldn't the railroad charge different prices to its customers? A

moral person exchanges value for value-- when you make an exchange with

someone, you don't do so at your loss. Two rational, moral people engage in an

exchange in which they each benefit. A railroad should set the terms of its

exchange dependent upon the value which the customer offers it.

Now that value might be money-- that's the way prices are set in markets: if

the customer will pay more, the price goes up. But that value might also be

bulk-- hence bulk discounts. That value might also be in the quality of the

product and the railroad's assessment of anticipated profits and business

success of the customer.

For example, Rockefeller's kerosene was vastly superior in chemistry to the

petroleum products other people were offering. His business was also more

efficient and economical. Because Rockefeller's " shrewd and cruel " business

practices ( " robbery " ?) amounted to hiring the best and brightest minds to be

found

to produce the best product with the best efficiency, Rockefeller represented

much more value to a railroad than any of his competitors, and it is only

sensible, efficient, and moral, to give him a better rate.

I'm not as familiar with the phenomenon you are discussing, but it seems kind

of doubtful and in fact totally implausible that one farmer could pay off a

railroad enough money to avoid other routes entirely if the railroad would not

have benefited from doing so without the " bribe. "

If a railroad were charging equivalent rates for two routes that were

equivalently populated with customers and would supply equivalent volume of

traffic,

then the folks on route a would have to pay enough money as a bribe to exceed

the amount of profit from route b. That means that the route a farmers would

be paying nearly double the rates that the route b farmers were paying, while

route b farmers would either have to find more local markets, or would have to

travel farther by other means to get to the railroad.

Either way, the bribers would be at a significant financial disadvantage.

And, of course, it isn't plausible that a profit-interested railroad would

accept the bribe unless they couldn't make much money of the initial route, in

which case they may not even have built the railroad had they not been offered

the bribe.

Two customers do not have a " right " to a seller's product-- the seller *owns*

the product. If one customer cannot offer the value to the seller that

another can, of course the seller can discriminate against him! Just like if I

have $6 and you have $9, the movie theater can discriminate against me, and give

you a movie ticket and not me, because I don't have the money to offer them.

Just the same, if one group of customers does not have the *volume* of traffic

to offer the railroad, it isn't worth it for the railroad to build them a

track.

Heck, I get bulk discounts all the time because I'm willing to buy in bulk.

Does someone buying only one unit of product " deserve " the same " entitlement "

and " right " to the price I get, because that's the " fair price " or the " price

the seller can afford " ? No, of course not.

> I personally believe more competition

> is a good thing, monopolies kill free commerce ... and I though Libertarians

> were all for free commerce. " Free commerce " isn't about individual rights,

> it is about an even playing field. The more even the playing field, I

> believe,

> the more the economy thrives.

You can't be for free comerce on the one hand and an even playing field on

the other. The idea that someone making a shabby, dirty, and inefficient oil

product " deserves " the same freight rates as someone making a highly efficient

and industrious, top-of-the-line kerosene is just a reward for incomeptence and

the expense of competence.

That *isn't* free commerce, because you are using *force*, the barrel of a

gun implicit on the other side of the table, to determine where someone builds

their railroads or what they charge for them, without giving the raildroad the

right to distinguish the value the customer is offering in exchange for the

value they are offering the customer. It's the opposite of free commerce.

> You seem to be saying that the gov't causes a lot

> of problems, but that folks left to their own devices

> will be better off.

No, I think people left to the devices of all of those with whom they make

exchanges of value for value, providing they exchange an actual value for that

value, will be better off. That's hardly, hardly, being left to one's " own "

devices.

> Humans are certainly charitable sometimes.

> Are they charitable ENOUGH to make a real

> difference in society?

They DO make a real difference in society. And less often than government

programs do they turn thriving economies into welfare slums.

Esp. when charitable operations

> have very little oversight and often are just ripoff schemes?

Some are, some aren't.

> I'd rather pay the gov't -- at least there I can inspect

> the books.

That's a stretch.

> Absolutely. Sure, antibiotics helped, but in the 1920's a lot of

> " centralized "

> health practices were already helping. Read Arrowsmith. As for building

> practices ... I think

> " building inspectors " are what really help. Most contractors around here

> build absolutely as cheaply as they can get away with (and say so, too!).

> I think the building codes are outdated and really in need of revamp ... BUT

> I'm reasonable sure that any building in Seattle will withstand most

> earthquakes

> and fires.

Building *should* be built cheaply, in the sense of efficiently-- but when

you put more money into something and make a better product, you can demand a

higher price for it. Building codes at least play their role in housing

shortage, no?

> " town tax money " ???? What you are describing is a very centralized,

> organized,

> system, based on religion and town gov't.

It's organized, it's not very centralized. The town tax money is dealt with

by the individuals who supply the tax, directly, and it is relatively easy for

one person to choose the town they live in. It isn't centralized, because it

is supplied first by families, and second by several instiutions which

themselves don't have any centralized structure.

> Plus it was more or less agrarian .. in a farm society, extra hands are

> much more

> useful (if only to watch the babies or make dinner).

No, they aren't. Because in a market society, people work unless they are

incompetent. The people were of little help to the family who took them in,

because hardly anyone was poor unless they were mentally ill.

> While the organization makes sense, it is still organization, which implies

> government.

In a sense, but the system, while collective, was directly decided upon by

the people who supplied the money. In a sense, it's just an example of how

people in a community will naturally develop community institutions to deal with

the problems they face. No one forced them to provide that type of relief, and

they could have left the people to starve if they wanted, but they didn't.

If you want examples of government-free societies, look at hunter-gatherer

egalitarian societies.

Anyway, almost the entirety of the poor were cared for without gov't

intervention.

> And it is much more city-state oriented -- I love the concept of city

> states, and think

> they are doable, but in the " small town " mentality there is also less

> freedom (isn't

> New England where the Witch Trials took place?).

> Would anyone truly take care of Aunt Martha if she were schizophrenic?

Probably, unless she inherited property because she had no brothers, then

they might burn her ;-)

And

> how do you make sure she isn't abused? Now you have to have inspectors,

> and standards, and all that. Unless you are a small town, then the mayor

> just

> walks around talking to people.

New England towns don't have mayors. New England towns are run by direct

democracy.

In any case, sure that's a problem. But in today's society, which is much

more developed due to increased wealth, you have hospitals that these people

would be in. There are variety of ways a hospital could be payed, such as

insurance. If you look at humans today, or in the past, there are a lot of

people

who go into medicine for the sake of helping people. There is lots of

volunteer medicine, though a lot of it ends up in the third world rather than

here

for obvious reasons. It's pretty reasonable to believe philanthropic

organizations and such medical institutions would exist.

Remember, that these government programs wouldn't exist if there weren't

people who fought for them. Their existence proves the existence of dedicated,

passionate, advocates of the unfortunate. Their existence does not, however,

indicate the non-existence of potential altenative institutions.

> I agree with that. However, there may not have been a lot of poverty in

> New England, but there was in other parts of the US. The Frugal Housewife

> certainly brings it up.

Sure. But remember poverty is relative. Today's poor live like the middle

class did in the 60s. A lot of times poverty is not determined by some

objective standard like, " do they have enough to eat, " but is measured by a

relative

monetary standard, which is rather absurd, because it's based on the false

notion that one person richer makes another poorer.

> >Speculate all you

> >>want, but history just doesn't bear it out!

> >

> >Yes, it does.

>

> Where? (besides small towns in New England, which I can't

> really check out anyway).

How about all the philanthropists you call robber barons? What about all the

socialites in n England, who tried to create socialist utopias with

their money? Humanity has always been full of people whose dream has been to

help the dispossessed, and many of them have been rich enough to finance such a

dream, were it possible to realize.

History just does *not* support the idea that people will not help others

unless the gov't forces them too, at all.

> >Well, there's the first problem. Insurance can be beneficial.

>

> ??? Maybe it was that was arguing that insurance

> was driving up prices.

was arguing that catastrophic insurance is a good thing and that

excessive insurance drives costs up, and noted that catastrophic insurance is

generally illegal, and posted an FEE article which supported his view.

> However ... care is CHEAPER in the " socialist " countries, and seemingly

> more effective, than in our " free market " medical system. Makes you wonder.

" Free market " medical system? What country do you live in again?

That's at least in part because we have better technology, which is why

people come from socialist countries like Canada to have their major operations

here. But since we don't remotely have a free market medical system, I'm not

sure how we can make the appropriate comparison.

> >As if an insurance policy that is taken by force can not exist as a

> voluntary

> >insurance policy.

>

> Maybe. Again, so far " voluntary insurance policies " have a really

> poor track record, except among rich, educated people.

The majority of people have medical insurance. Employers are required to

provide it, and there are lots of regulations on what kind of insurance plan it

ha

s to be (to ill effect) but generally you aren't required to have it unless

you are a college student or probably a gov't employee.

> I take it you like a lot of personal control. Well and good. Of course if

> you invest the money yourself and the stock market goes south, we

> are faced with the same problem: who takes care of Chris?

I addressed this in my email to in this same thread.

> >Good. Maybe that can afford some more work to the unemployed and put less

>

> >stress on both government programs and private charities to help those who

> >otherwise remain in a state of need.

>

> Naw, the TV's will be made in China.

So are you in the anti-globalization camp that attaches greater value to

American citizens than other humans?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/13/04 4:12:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Some of them are, most or all of them profess to be, but " free commerce "

> hardly means " no monopolies " , and to a lot of people, libertarianism means

> " get off my back so I can do whatever the hell I want to " .

That's what it means to you and to a lot of people who don't understand it,

but to libertarians it means " Let me do only the things I may do without using

violence, and let you do the same, " which, if enforced evenly, can be

extrapolated to " Let me do anything I choose so long as I do not use force. "

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/13/04 4:56:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> The latter interpretation is the one I seem

> to pick up on. In the media the " libertarian "

> camp seems to be a smokescreen for " deregulate the

> big companies so they can do whatever the hell they

> want to " .

Out of curiosity, when have you seen any depiction at all of libertarianism

in the mainstream media? I can think of very few figures in the mainstream

media that support libertarianism. The only one who comes to mind off the top

of

my head is Stossel.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I wanted to make two points in this thread that are responses to several

emails past.

The first, grain-feeding of cows shouldn't be associated with big corporate

farms. Grain-feeding of cows began in New England on the " progressive " farms

in the 1830s. The point, in part, was efficiency, but also to give cows enough

calories to get milk consistently through the winter.

The " progressive " farms were the giants of the time-- they had about 10 cows.

That's correct, about 10. Small business-oriented farms had 3 or four, and

nearly everyone in rural towns owned at least one cow, no matter how dirt poor

they were. Folks who had one cow weren't in business at all, they were using

the milk themselves. Other folks were making butter and cheese to sell,

probably most of it going to cities.

The second point is a response to Heidi, who said that our rise in wealth

paralleled our rise in government, and it's hard to distinguish whether or not

the rise in government was responsible.

The value of manufactured goods between 1860 and 1914 increased 12-fold,

which is an average of 22.2% per year. Capital investment over the same time

period multiplied 22 times, which is a growth rate of 40.7% per year.

I'm not so sure the era of " modern government " has seen comparable growth.

Moreover, as far as I know, industrialism began in England, in response to

economic liberalism. Adam published the Wealth of Nations in 1776, and in

response to his thought, utilitarianism, etc, and all that produced the

philosophy of liberalism (which is the opposite of what Americans call

liberalism,

just to be clear), and hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of laws were

eliminated from England's lawbooks. Hence, a thriving industrial economy.

America

followed shortly.

I'm not sure from whence one derives an association with government

intervention in the economy and economic growth. Especially since the Federal

Reserves

stated purpose is to limit economic growth anyway.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

In a message dated 1/13/04 6:05:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> I agree with -- you are assuming moral rational people, not

> money-grubbing power-hungry humans.

No, I'm assuming money-grubbing self-interested humans, which I'm equating

with moral rational people.

> Now if I owned a railroad, and my cousin owned a farm,

> and he wanted to expand his farm, I charge him less

> and his neighbors more.

Then you aren't assuming money-grubbing self-interested humans. If you own a

railroad, you're going to charge the people who have something of value to

offer to you more money. Can you at least produce some evidence that this even

occurred? Just look at who got the lowest rates-- look at the accounts of the

" robber baron " histories, and what these historians use to indict the

" robbers. " They point to Rockefeller and Carnegie and all these fellows who

used

" conspiracy " and " collusion " to, for example, get lower freight rates. Do you

have any evidence that any of them were cousins of the railroad owners?

Even if it *were* true, how many cousins can a railroad owner possibly have?

The laughable part is, in respect to farms, you were referring to the

discriminate *building* of railroads. One farm can only offer so much traffic

for a

railroad to profit from. Do you honestly think a railroad owner would build

an entire route to service his cousin, when his cousin could not provide enough

traffic to justify it?

Or, if I want to invest in land in

> Tacoma, I just don't stop there for a bit until land prices

> drop, then I buy Tacoma. Maybe I lose money in the

> short run, but I make out like a bandit in the long run.

> The fact farmers lose their farms in the process isn't

> my problem, I'm making money!

Heidi, stop and think: did farms exist before railroads?

Another thought: is the farmer producing LESS if the railroad owner does not

build a route through his territory than if the railroad owner never existed?

> The whole issue is that when people can make money,

> they will, regardless of the benefit or lack to others.

The whole issue is that if you want to maximize your profit, you deal with

the people who have something to offer you, not your worthless cousin.

But you are skipping over a big moral issue: if I build a railroad, I'm

creating something that otherwise would not exist. Do you have a " right " to use

it? If you do, what justifies that right?

If you produce only what you can produce by your own labor, you're going to

be living at subsistence level. If someone creates something that causes your

labor to be worth more, and you work for him, you make an exchange, whereby

the value of your labor is increased, you share part of the benefit, and the

creator shares part of the benefit.

Does the laborer, who does nothing whatsoever more than he did without the

creator, have a " right " to, say, one half of the increased value, rather than

one tenth? None of the creative power of his mind, none of the extra hours

worked or extra abstinence practiced to accumulate the capital, went into this

increase in value.

So on what basis does he have a " right " to a certain share of the value,

beyond what the creator of the capital will choose to give him? On the basis

that

the capitalist is getting rich and therefore immoral? On the basis that he

a) chose not to use his creative genius

or

did not possess sufficient creative genius

?

Does one person have a right to something because he does not possess that

genius, and the person who does possess that genius is an immoral money-grubbing

power-whore because of his blessings? Or, on the other hand, is the laborer

more noble because he chose not to pursue money? In that case you are

choosing option a, in which case you consider the laborer to have a right and to

be

moral on the basis of choosing *not* to use his creative power. And you punish

both morally and physically the one who chose to use it!

> So if I was Enron, I could shut down a reactor, drive

> up energy prices, claim there is a shortage, and again

> make out like a bandit while poor folks see their

> energy rates quadruple.

Heidi, if someone steals your credit card, don't you call up the credit card

company and cancel it? What else are you doing, except defending your own

property from someone else who claims a need over it?

Now if some poor person has less dollars than you, claims by the same logic

and moral premises that you are advocating that they have a RIGHT to half those

extra dollars-- precisely because they either lacked the ability or

willingless to accumulate them, much like your farmer versus my railroad owner--

, and

so takes your credit card in order to spend his deserved right (i.e. your

money), how is he less justified than the electricity consumer who claims a

right

to a certain price that an electricity producer doesn't want to offer? Isn't

it the same logic, yet wouldn't you defend your own property because... it's

yours?

So say instead that hundreds of thousands of people have less, and " vote " to

take another hundred thousand people's credit cards because they have more...

does that make it more moral because there are more of them?

Or say hundreds of thousands of Californians decide they want the *work* that

electricity producers do, but don't want to pay the *price* they demand, they

enact price caps. The electricity producers would charge them higher, but

cannot, because if they do, he'll get taken to court. If they refuse they might

get thrown in jail. If they refuse that, they'll be staring down the barrel

of a gun.

Explain to me again the moral distinction between this mob action and the

singular action of the thief who steals your credit card?

And explain again to me the difference between the electricity company

saying, " fine, if you want to force us to work at your price, which used to be

called slavery, we just aren't going to do the work " and you saying, " fine, if

you

are going to take my credit card, i'm going to eliminate its value by

cancelling it. " ?

Actually, one other question, as an afterthought-- what is the difference

between Enron shutting down a reactor because they don't like the wage you're

paying them, and a union going on strike because they don't like the wage

they're

being paid?

You might argue that electricity is a " public resource " because it exists in

a potential form in the ground, but as I pointed out earlier, you are assuming

a value to material objects that exists apart from the human agency which

gives them value. Coal, apart from human ingenuity, is dead, lifeless, and

unproductive while in the ground.

In order to harvest that energy, there has to be someone to drill the coal

(of course, it will make them money, so this is the first immoral act committed

in the process.) In order to buy a drill, someone has to work extra hours,

spend less money at restaurants and theaters and on CDs and video games in order

to save up the capital (the second immoral act). They have to put brain

power into organizing a business. (the third immoral act). Someone also had to

use their individual ingenuity to invent the capital in the first place, which

can not be replaced by the work of another mind. (a fourth immoral act). Then

someone had to figure out how to turn coal into electricity. (a fifth). Then

someone else had to save up all the capital, by working extra hours, and

saving money, and taking a risk that others weren't going to risk, investing in

it.

(the final, money-grubbing inhuman immoral act).

This is all human effort that these humans OWN. They could have chosen not

to make the effort, but they did. Therefore, they can choose what this effort

is worth to them. They will exchange the product of their effort with someone

at a price agreed by both. If the consumer does not like the price, he can

opt not to have the benefit of electricity, which he otherwise would not have.

If the producer does not like the price, he can choose not to offer his

product. Which is what you are describing-- the choice not to offer the product

of

your own effort to someone who will exchange a smaller value for it than you

believe it is worth.

Just like if I want to buy the program you've developed to keep your food

diary, because I don't know programming and couldn't make it myself, I don't

have

a " right " to demand it at any price. You might consider that program beyond

value and you simply don't want to share it.

But I " need " it. Therefore I have a " right " to it, and you don't-- you're

selfish for having it when I don't. Why am I moral and you immoral? Because

you made it, and I didn't. I'm in the right because I *don't* know programming

language or I *don't* choose to use what I know to make something creative.

You are immoral because you *do* have knowledge and the willingness to use it.

Isn't that backwards?

Secrecy combined with

> monopolistic power has never benefited the

> general public -- it has made some individuals

> filthy rich.

This defies reality so deeply that you must either have not studied the

Guilded Age or you are choosing to ignore it. Railroads did not benefit anyone?

Stable oil supply, superior technology, at a discount price, provided by the

secrecy and monopoly of Rockefeller didn't benefit anyone? You wouldn't have

what you have today if it wasn't for them.

> So what is the goal of such rules as you are

> willing to allow -- to make individuals rich, or

> to provide the best society for the most people?

Where's the conflict? How is condoning slavery a good society for anyone?

Do the able have a responsibility to make the unable rich while the unable set

the price? Or should the able benefit the unable in an exchange in which both

are willing to participate? Either way the unable benefit by merely

exchanging anything with the able.

It is pure and simple, and undeniable, that were you to work merely by your

own labor with no capital, you would have *vastly* less wealth than what the

person working the absolute dirt cheapest wage in America would earn, even were

there no minimum wage. If you worked in the Middle Ages as a black smith you

would accumulate a living no one in this century in this country would be

willing to live, even the poorest. If you do *less* work today at a factory,

you

accumulate not only good shelter, but a television, a computer, a

refrigerator, a car, video games for your kids. Is that the product of your

labor? No!

Your doing even less-- it is the product of the capital that is vastly

increasing the value of your labor, without which you would be living at bare

subsistence.

>

> >For example, Rockefeller's kerosene was vastly superior in chemistry to the

>

> >petroleum products other people were offering. His business was also more

> >efficient and economical. Because Rockefeller's " shrewd and cruel "

> business

> >practices ( " robbery " ?) amounted to hiring the best and brightest minds to

> be found

> >to produce the best product with the best efficiency, Rockefeller

> represented

> >much more value to a railroad than any of his competitors, and it is only

> >sensible, efficient, and moral, to give him a better rate.

>

> And one reason he made " better " petroleum was

> because of competition, which means he didn't have a monopoly

> on petroleum, which is not the subject.

He acquired a monopoly *by* making better kerosene, and continued to make

better kerosene, and actually produced at a lower cost to the consumer once he

eliminated competition, integrating both horizontally and vertically. He was

through and through a monopolist, as well as a philanthropist and princpled

businessman.

The question is, why should an inferior producer have a " right " to be part of

the competition?

The other question was whether the railroad " monopolists " (actually, they

DIDN'T have a monopoly, unlike Rockefeller) had the right to give Rockefeller

lower rates. The answer is yes, because he was so vastly more competent than

his

competition that he eliminated them. Since they were incompetent, it hardly

benefits the " public good " to keep them in business. What would you do to

keep them in business? Subsidize them? I thought we were against " corporate

welfare " ?

Giving a better

> rate isn't really the issue here either ... the fact

> the rates weren't PUBLISHED was part of the deal.

So? And by the way, who was the railroad monopolist? Rockefeller's account

I quoted mentioned that the prices were hidden from their competitors. Now, I

can say, Rockefeller and Standard Oil was the oil monopoly, or

Carnegie was the steel monopoly, etc. But when were railroads a monopoly

(before

Amtrak), and if they were, who owned them? In any case, in Rockefeller's day,

there was more than one.

> Also, even in the competitive arena, un-examanined

> desire for profit and productivity is what has

> given us factory farming and monoculture. Productivity

> is a nice thing ... but productivity at all costs

> is not.

That's true-- those things are also what's given India the luxury to have

college graduates, that you like. I don't agree with factory farming, which is

why I buy elsewhere, but it offers unquestionable benefits to society if people

aren't concerned with the quality of their food.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>I personally believe more competition

>is a good thing, monopolies kill free commerce ... and I though Libertarians

>were all for free commerce.

Some of them are, most or all of them profess to be, but " free commerce "

hardly means " no monopolies " , and to a lot of people, libertarianism means

" get off my back so I can do whatever the hell I want to " .

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/13/04 7:29:25 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Dpdg@... writes:

>

>

> this IS worrying...

>

> Dedy

>

>

> <<Heidi, stop and think: did farms exist before railroads?>>

Dedy,

Huh? :-)

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Heidi-

>

>>I personally believe more competition

>>is a good thing, monopolies kill free commerce ... and I though Libertarians

>>were all for free commerce.

>

>Some of them are, most or all of them profess to be, but " free commerce "

>hardly means " no monopolies " , and to a lot of people, libertarianism means

> " get off my back so I can do whatever the hell I want to " .

:

The latter interpretation is the one I seem

to pick up on. In the media the " libertarian "

camp seems to be a smokescreen for " deregulate the

big companies so they can do whatever the hell they

want to " .

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>Now, why shouldn't the railroad charge different prices to its customers? A

>moral person exchanges value for value-- when you make an exchange with

>someone, you don't do so at your loss. Two rational, moral people engage in an

>exchange in which they each benefit. A railroad should set the terms of its

>exchange dependent upon the value which the customer offers it.

I agree with -- you are assuming moral rational people, not

money-grubbing power-hungry humans.

Now if I owned a railroad, and my cousin owned a farm,

and he wanted to expand his farm, I charge him less

and his neighbors more. Or, if I want to invest in land in

Tacoma, I just don't stop there for a bit until land prices

drop, then I buy Tacoma. Maybe I lose money in the

short run, but I make out like a bandit in the long run.

The fact farmers lose their farms in the process isn't

my problem, I'm making money!

The whole issue is that when people can make money,

they will, regardless of the benefit or lack to others.

So if I was Enron, I could shut down a reactor, drive

up energy prices, claim there is a shortage, and again

make out like a bandit while poor folks see their

energy rates quadruple. Secrecy combined with

monopolistic power has never benefited the

general public -- it has made some individuals

filthy rich.

So what is the goal of such rules as you are

willing to allow -- to make individuals rich, or

to provide the best society for the most people?

>For example, Rockefeller's kerosene was vastly superior in chemistry to the

>petroleum products other people were offering. His business was also more

>efficient and economical. Because Rockefeller's " shrewd and cruel " business

>practices ( " robbery " ?) amounted to hiring the best and brightest minds to be

found

>to produce the best product with the best efficiency, Rockefeller represented

>much more value to a railroad than any of his competitors, and it is only

>sensible, efficient, and moral, to give him a better rate.

And one reason he made " better " petroleum was

because of competition, which means he didn't have a monopoly

on petroleum, which is not the subject. Giving a better

rate isn't really the issue here either ... the fact

the rates weren't PUBLISHED was part of the deal.

Also, even in the competitive arena, un-examanined

desire for profit and productivity is what has

given us factory farming and monoculture. Productivity

is a nice thing ... but productivity at all costs

is not.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

can't see the screen for the smoke :-) ... seeing the quasi religious stance

taken by some of it's proponents, it may have already transformed into

'ubiquitarianism'...

Dedy

In the media the " libertarian " camp seems to be a smokescreen for " deregulate

the big companies so they can do whatever the hell they

want to " . -- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

> Mostly the ones who are talking about privatizing government ...

> in the name of liberalism. I don't know what liberalism they

> belong to, just that they were really into privatizing.

They belong to the only tradition that has any right to use the word

liberalism, which in modern American bastardized linguistics would be called

" classical " " neoclassical " or " neoliberal " economics, or, Classical Liberalism.

That doesn't make them libertarians. Why call them libertarians, when their

views are almost undoubtedly different from those of libertarians and they

don't even attempt to use the name? The idea that libertarians support

privitazation and therefore must have equivalent views to others who support

privitization is a non-sequitor.

If you read some actual libertarian writings, like, say, on the libertarian

party's website, you might get a different view.

Heidi wrote:

>Hmm. Well, I can think of a lot of nasty things I can

>do to someone without using violence! Seems like

>a supremely narcississtic way of looking at the universe.

Such as what?

To be clear, by violence, I would include any act under the threat of

violence. For example, a mugger who does not actually shoot or knife his victim

is

engaging in violence by the mere threat thereof.

If you think this is narcissistic, you must have a very deep, fundamental

misunderstanding of it.

What is it liberals like to say, " you can't legislate morality " ? My view of

what a government should do is not a mirror image of my own morality. I don't

think the government should be able to punish me for telling my mother she's

worthless, for example, but that doesn't mean I would ever say that, think

that, or consider it a moral thing to do. A minister can advocate separation of

church and state. Does that mean he's not religious, because he doesn't want

the state to be religious? Does he believe that, since the state shouldn't

worship God, that he shouldn't worship God? Of course not.

The purpose of a government is to protect peoples rights and to enforce

contracts. How is that narcissism?

Heidi wrote:

>There was a whole special on the History channel about it (or PBS, forget

which).

>Basically about the death of the small farm and how a lot of it was

>orchestrated by the railroads. I really don't want to get into

>whether or not they had the *right* to do that ... it was a nasty

>thing to do and we are still reaping the " benefits " .

Sure, and I have a professional article on how Hamilton was

involved in an attempted Fascist coup. Granted, the evidence was weak and

Fascism

didn't exist at the time, but it's published and you can get it at a library.

Just because PBS runs a documentary doesn't mean the opinion in it has any

merit, and if it has merit, it isn't necessarily correct.

If you can dig up any information on it, please send it along. I don't think

railroads have the " right " to destroy anyone's business, small or large. So,

I'm not disagreeing that that would be wrong, I just very much doubt that it

actually occurred.

>History is FULL of examples of big corporations ruining the

>environment, harming workers, etc. If you don't believe the

>that history,

History is full of all sorts of people harming all sorts of people and

things, including corporations. Do you think I think a corporation has the

right to

hurt someone, while a private individual does not? Do you think I think a

corporation has the right to dump toxic waste in my back yard or yours?

History is also full of examples of workers hurting businessmen. I don't

think either businessmen OR workers should have the right to hurt the other.

What I object to is the double standard, where you believe a worker has some

right that a businessman does not.

Do you consider it moral that Reagan stopped the air traffic controller

strike? Most liberals and labor-minded folks consider it awful. Reagan claimed

it

was for national security, and the public good.

Do you agree with me that a worker has the right to use her own body as a

bargaining tool, and to choose whether or not to go to work?

If so, why do you apply a double standard to an electric company? Because

electricity is something " the people " " need " ? Isn't that exactly what Reagan

claimed as his justification for breaking the strike?

In one example, businesses are using force via the government to hurt

workers, and in another, consumers are using force via the government to hurt

businesses.

I oppose both. Why do you apply a double standard?

> or you believe they have that right,

I don't believe that corporations have the right to

-- use government force against workers or consumers

-- use government force for an unfair advantage against their competitors

-- dump their own waste on someone else's property without that person's

permission

-- use government definitions of fictional entities to avoid responsibility

for their actions (i.e. the liability of the people who found a corporation

should not be limited to the assets of the corporation for damages for which

they

are at fault)

I do believe that people have the right to:

-- own property, and retain it, barring some very significant burden of proof

-- own property collectively; e.g., form a corporation (without the limited

liability as per above)

-- use their property in any way they see fit, that does not simultaneously

violate any of the above principles

> or that they

>only dump toxins in streams because of gov't regulation,

That's a rather absurd characterization of my position. I've explained some

of the mechanisms by which government intervention in the economy primarily

benefits businesses and turns an economic system from capitalism into cronyism

in my post to . chose not to respond. You could have jumped in, but

did not. If you disagree, please dispute what I said on a point-by-point

basis. If you don't want to have the discussion, that's fine. But don't

blatantly mischaracterize my position with one only a fool would take, please.

If corporations dump toxins in streams, in all liklihood they are damage

someone's person or property, which violates the principles I bulleted above.

But

why not stick to the subject at hand? You didn't mention anything about

robber barons dumping toxins, you mentioned robber barons engaging in

monopolistic

practices. I responded to *that*, and you respond about toxins, which never

came up?

Do you have a response to the historical, economic, or moral points I raised

in my previous post?

> then it's an impossible argument.

It would be less impossible if you'd be willing to follow the subject in a

step-by-step manner, rather than having me spend a half hour typing up a fairly

detailed response about a very specific point, and changing the subject to one

completely different when you respond, avoiding the initial issue completely.

I hope that after this post, after reading the principles I outlined above,

you might understand my position more clearly, and perhaps that can form a

basis for a discussion that will prove more fruitful, since we seem to be

miscommunicating.

Chris

[Guest guest]

this IS worrying...

Dedy

<<Heidi, stop and think: did farms exist before railroads?>>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/13/04 11:49:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> IOW, you're making two parallel assumptions: money-grubbing = moral, and

> people are rational. I don't have time for a debate over the nature of

> morality (I'm still digging out from under a mountain of email, and I

> haven't even responded to those who offered to become moderators (my

> apologies for those of you reading this) but your assumption that people

> always act rationally is simply incorrect. Pretty much nobody except some

> economists and certain classes of politician and media types make that

> assumption, at least not anymore. In fact, it only had a brief heyday.

Oh great, the dawn of the age of irrationality.

People have a moral responsiblity to use their minds. In general, people

maximize what is their self-interest. For example, I had a friend who gained

pleasure from drinking milk. When he did so, he would keel over and lie on the

floor in pain, but he never stopped. You could say he's irrational, but he's

making a choice, which is that the value of the taste and feel of milk in his

mouth is more valuable to him than lack of pain.

Everyone to some extent has values and desires in life and tries to balance

them and fulfill them in some way.

If economists are the last bastion of reality, so be it.

>

> >>Now if I owned a railroad, and my cousin owned a farm,

> >>and he wanted to expand his farm, I charge him less

> >>and his neighbors more.

> >

> >Then you aren't assuming money-grubbing self-interested humans.

>

> I think you say this because you don't understand the biological,

> evolutionary basis of human nature. In _Blank Slate_, Pinker makes

> a few unwarranted assumptions of his own (in areas outside his expertise)

> but his work overall is nonetheless invaluable, and makes quite clear why

> people evolved to help out their genetic relations.

>

> This gets back to my earlier point, too, in that nobody can even agree on

> what exactly rational analysis will yield and what the basis of actual

> rationality actually is. You say giving a relative a discount is

> irrational, but from an evolutionary perspective, it's perfectly

> rational. Which analysis is correct? Which analysis is rational? What is

> rationality?

Actually I was saying it isn't in the interest of profit. One could be

unconcerned with profit and concerned with supporting his buddies, in which case

it

would be perfectly rational. If one would was concerned more with profit, it

would be utterly irrational.

I don't know what your analysis is in detail, but from what I can gather

superficially, it's fundamental flaw is an assumption of the objectivity of

personal values. Since values arise volitionally from a human's own

consciousness

(I'm sure you disagree, but nevertheless...) each human determines her own

values. You can't claim an actor is irrational without the premise that you can

objectively determine her values. That premise is false. If you believe an

actor acts irrationally, check your premises.

>

> >The question is, why should an inferior producer have a " right " to be part

> of

> >the competition?

>

> You're fundamentally missing the point. A level, open and fair playing

> field enables competition to weed out inferior products and services and

> spurs those behind inferior products and services to improve their

> offerings.

I'm not missing that point, I'm arguing it's wrong. If a customer is going

to offer a greater value to a railroad by selling a better product or more of

it and shipping that product, then the railroad has a right to reward that

value, and *that* is part of the process of weeding out inferior products.

If the railroad has a " responsiblity " to build a route through an area that

will bring them no profit, it hurts both the railroad and the other customers

who *are* bringing the railroad a greater profit, which they do by offer better

products or higher volume.

It also benefits consumers by generating a self-reinforcing

> arms race -- as long as there's competition instead of a monopoly. When

> there's a monopoly, consumers are harmed, sometimes grievously.

Sometimes, sometimes they are benefited. Rockefeller benefited consumers by

stabilizing the oil market and lowering the prices. Others followed his

examples in monopolizing but not his principles and harmed consumers.

>

> >[factory farming] offers unquestionable benefits to society if people

> >aren't concerned with the quality of their food.

>

> Here's another shining example of the meaningless of the concept of

> rational analysis. It is rational for producers to desire the economies of

> scale offered by factory farming. It is rational for consumers to desire

> cheap, easily available food. It is also rational to say that this

> rational system is a disaster because it's made hundreds of millions of

> people so ill that if civilization ever recovers from it at all, it'll take

> generations. And yet the assumption behind the advocates of (their brand

> of) rationality always assume that there is only one rational analysis.

That's no flaw in rational analysis at all. You claim its harmful, but that

doesn't make it irrational. Your disagreement is with the values the actor's

in question are using for rational analysis. You have no argument that they

aren't practicing rational analysis.

When my grandfather goes shopping, he looks for stuff on sale, and tries to

minimize the money he spends. That is rationality at work, working on a

certain value as a premise.

Now, factory farming has probably done more harm than good to Americans, but

in somewhere like India, it's the hope of preventing starvation.

Also, I suspect that the mixed blessings of agro technology could be sorted

out in such a way to retain some of them while bettering the nutrition.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Out of curiosity, when have you seen any depiction at all of libertarianism

>in the mainstream media? I can think of very few figures in the mainstream

>media that support libertarianism. The only one who comes to mind off the top

of

>my head is Stossel.

>

>Chris

Mostly the ones who are talking about privatizing government ...

in the name of liberalism. I don't know what liberalism they

belong to, just that they were really into privatizing.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

> " Let me do only the things I may do without using

>violence, and let you do the same, " which, if enforced evenly, can be

>extrapolated to " Let me do anything I choose so long as I do not use force. "

>

>Chris

Hmm. Well, I can think of a lot of nasty things I can

do to someone without using violence! Seems like

a supremely narcississtic way of looking at the universe.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>Then you aren't assuming money-grubbing self-interested humans. If you own a

>railroad, you're going to charge the people who have something of value to

>offer to you more money. Can you at least produce some evidence that this even

>occurred?

There was a whole special on the History channel about it (or PBS, forget

which).

Basically about the death of the small farm and how a lot of it was

orchestrated by the railroads. I really don't want to get into

whether or not they had the *right* to do that ... it was a nasty

thing to do and we are still reaping the " benefits " .

History is FULL of examples of big corporations ruining the

environment, harming workers, etc. If you don't believe the

that history, or you believe they have that right, or that they

only dump toxins in streams because of gov't regulation, then

it's an impossible argument.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Chris-

That's true assuming only that by " libertarians " you mean " honest, true

libertarians who fit my definition of the term " .

>That's what it means to you and to a lot of people who don't understand it,

>but to libertarians it means " Let me do only the things I may do without

>using

>violence, and let you do the same, " which, if enforced evenly, can be

>extrapolated to " Let me do anything I choose so long as I do not use force. "

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> > I agree with -- you are assuming moral rational people, not

> > money-grubbing power-hungry humans.

>

>No, I'm assuming money-grubbing self-interested humans, which I'm equating

>with moral rational people.

IOW, you're making two parallel assumptions: money-grubbing = moral, and

people are rational. I don't have time for a debate over the nature of

morality (I'm still digging out from under a mountain of email, and I

haven't even responded to those who offered to become moderators (my

apologies for those of you reading this) but your assumption that people

always act rationally is simply incorrect. Pretty much nobody except some

economists and certain classes of politician and media types make that

assumption, at least not anymore. In fact, it only had a brief heyday.

> > Now if I owned a railroad, and my cousin owned a farm,

> > and he wanted to expand his farm, I charge him less

> > and his neighbors more.

>

>Then you aren't assuming money-grubbing self-interested humans.

I think you say this because you don't understand the biological,

evolutionary basis of human nature. In _Blank Slate_, Pinker makes

a few unwarranted assumptions of his own (in areas outside his expertise)

but his work overall is nonetheless invaluable, and makes quite clear why

people evolved to help out their genetic relations.

This gets back to my earlier point, too, in that nobody can even agree on

what exactly rational analysis will yield and what the basis of actual

rationality actually is. You say giving a relative a discount is

irrational, but from an evolutionary perspective, it's perfectly

rational. Which analysis is correct? Which analysis is rational? What is

rationality?

>The question is, why should an inferior producer have a " right " to be part of

>the competition?

You're fundamentally missing the point. A level, open and fair playing

field enables competition to weed out inferior products and services and

spurs those behind inferior products and services to improve their

offerings. It also benefits consumers by generating a self-reinforcing

arms race -- as long as there's competition instead of a monopoly. When

there's a monopoly, consumers are harmed, sometimes grievously.

>[factory farming] offers unquestionable benefits to society if people

>aren't concerned with the quality of their food.

Here's another shining example of the meaningless of the concept of

rational analysis. It is rational for producers to desire the economies of

scale offered by factory farming. It is rational for consumers to desire

cheap, easily available food. It is also rational to say that this

rational system is a disaster because it's made hundreds of millions of

people so ill that if civilization ever recovers from it at all, it'll take

generations. And yet the assumption behind the advocates of (their brand

of) rationality always assume that there is only one rational analysis.

-

[Guest guest]

<<Which analysis is correct? Which analysis is rational? What is

rationality?>>

,

There will never be THE one answer and I don't think this is news to you :-)...

the whole subject is inextricably conditioned by cultural, social, marital,

religious and gender bias.

Dedy

[Guest guest]

how do you 'enforce' without using force?... without implied punitive measures

no enforcement can take place, evenly or not...

Dedy

<<That's what it means to you and to a lot of people who don't understand it,

but to libertarians it means " Let me do only the things I may do without using

violence, and let you do the same, " which, if enforced evenly, can be

extrapolated to " Let me do anything I choose so long as I do not use force. " >>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/13/04 11:49:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> >No, I'm assuming money-grubbing self-interested humans, which I'm equating

> >with moral rational people.

>

> IOW, you're making two parallel assumptions: money-grubbing = moral, and

> people are rational. I don't have time for a debate over the nature of

> morality

I just wanted to make a clarification here, as this could easily be

misunderstood.

First, I disagree with the term " money-grubbing " and was simply using it as

Heidi used it, referring, not to *her* idea of " money-grubbing " but to the

people to whom she was using it to refer.

What I mean is that the pursuit of money with honesty by freely exchanging

value for value is a moral pursuit. Accumulating money by force or dishonesty

is NOT.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/14/04 7:31:47 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Dpdg@... writes:

> how do you 'enforce' without using force?... without implied punitive

> measures no enforcement can take place, evenly or not...

You do use force. What is considered immoral is the *initiation* of force.

In other words, it is considered just to use self-defense against force

initiated by someone else, and it is considered just for the government to use

force

to prevent or counteract the force initiated by someone else.

Opposition to force per se would be pacifism, I think, not Libertarianism,

and would be someone irrational to extend beyond a personal philosophy, and, as

you point out, impossible.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Reply-

> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:15:55 EST

>

> Subject: Re: Re: money and health

>

>

> I wanted to make two points in this thread that are responses to several

> emails past.

>

> The first, grain-feeding of cows shouldn't be associated with big corporate

> farms. Grain-feeding of cows began in New England on the " progressive " farms

> in the 1830s. The point, in part, was efficiency, but also to give cows

> enough

> calories to get milk consistently through the winter.

>

It seems to me that if in TODAY's society, big corporate farms without

exception use grain-feeding of cows, and make it harder for for smaller

pasture-feeding farms to exist, then there is nothing wrong with making this

association.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/14/04 9:30:16 AM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> It seems to me that if in TODAY's society, big corporate farms without

> exception use grain-feeding of cows, and make it harder for for smaller

> pasture-feeding farms to exist, then there is nothing wrong with making this

> association.

Gene,

Most farms, even many who recognize the importance of pasture feeding, use

grain. Even some farmers on this list use grain. For some of the farmers I

know personally, they do their best not to use grain, but struggle to do so

often.

Most beef cattle, to my understanding, are pastured no matter what farm

they're on. They are grain finished, but that is to provide marbling, which the

consumer values. So, the practice of grain-feeding versus pasture is largely

consistent between corporate and smaller farms.

Farming doesn't bring much of an income, period. I think most farmers do it

for the lifestyle, and many quit not because they are outcompeted (actually the

ability to form contracts with a corporate distributor almost undoubtedly

raises their income or at least economic stability), but because they can make

more money doing most other things. That's my impression anyway.

Pasture-feeders who actually value pasturing aren't even competing with

corporate farms. They are aiming their products at a niche market that values

pasturing, and are getting, often, big premiums for it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Gene-

In fact, it would probably be easy to argue that technology allows both

grass-fed and grain-fed operations to scale up from their previous size

limits, and that technology will always allow unhealthy mechanisms to grow

more than healthy ones, so the fact that the first grain-feeding farms were

much, much smaller back then hardly argues against the fundamental point.

>It seems to me that if in TODAY's society, big corporate farms without

>exception use grain-feeding of cows, and make it harder for for smaller

>pasture-feeding farms to exist, then there is nothing wrong with making this

>association.

-