On Wed, 2010-12-29 at 09:54 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Craig Haynie wrote: > > > It is not possible for any type of program to improve the welfare of all > > individuals, unless those individuals freely agreed to join the program. > > If that were true, no program could help babies or senile adults, who > are not capable of agreeing or understanding anything. Manifestly, many > economic and social programs do help such people. Sewers, inoculations > and public health programs benefit everyone, even people who pay no > taxes to support them, and even people who refuse the inoculations.
With regard to babies and seniles, I might agree, but if someone refuses to join a group that builds sewers and provides public health programs, then you cannot say that these systems would help him. For if HE thought these types of public services would benefit him, then he would voluntarily join the program. But no group provides services of any kind without extracting a cost, and the cost/benefit calculation must be available for everyone to use when deciding whether the benefit outweighs the cost. To separate cost from benefit, (which can only be done through force and threats), is to separate action from responsibility. It's a law of nature that demands that every action have a price; and every service a cost. In order to get the water out of the river, you first have to build a dam. Water is the service; laboring to build a dam is the cost. > Countless programs help you even though you do not even they exist. If I don't know the program exists, then I don't know the cost. The cost of the program has been separated from the benefit with the cost extracted at the point of a gun. I am not making a metaphor. If you don't pay taxes, people with guns will ultimately come to your house. It's a philosophical argument that I'm making and nothing more. When we organize society, we must learn to avoid treating people like tools for the benefit of someone's 'program', and treat each other with respect, as equals. When we structure society through voluntary cooperation, then we can create programs that work. It is not ironic that many liberals do not like the state that the US Federal Government appears to exhibit today. They see a war-prone empire which does not hesitate to use bloody force to achieve its political aims. They see corruption and corporatism spreading, with political power being used to bestow political favors, and punish political enemies. Many people can find one or two political programs that they like, but also find many, many more which they detest. This is what happens when thousands of people each vie for political power, each with a different 'program' that they want to impose on everyone, with the cost applied to those who disagree. > Some > of them are in other countries, such as Japan, where the government > helps develop industrial standards, product safety, advanced traffic > safety, and hybrid automobiles. Yesterday the Kanagawa prefecture > government announced they are buying hundreds of electric cars. That > will help you eventually. You did not freely agree to this, but it will > benefit you. There's no way for you to know if any program will benefit me because you don't know my values. And in this case, there's no way for me to know if it will benefit me, because I don't know how much it will cost me. > The economic system must change because machines will gradually replace > most workers, and people will no longer be needed. The system can no > longer be based on the exchange of labor for goods. It should be fair, > and it should preserve freedom, capitalism and competition, but above > all, it should work. It should give everyone what we need to survive. If > it doesn't do that, it will not accomplish anything else, either. This is speculation, but if it turns out to be true, then let's change it together, through voluntary cooperation without threats of violence being imposed on those who disagree. Craig
