NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/sci/econ/6586

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-27 | 6.8 KB

From: [e-mail] (Graham Flower)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:29:58 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: The Moral Basis of Property   was Libertarian history
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hplextra!hpcc05!hpcc01!flower
Newsgroups: sci.econ
References: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 125

>>faction of the revolutionary and constitutional leadership.
>
>Try a biography of little known figures like George Washington, or
>Thomas Jefferson. Perhaps Flexners Washigton the Indispensible Man or

I'll look for explicit reference.

>example of how the founders dealt with this issue of rights vs property rights.
>The 3/5ths compromise which basically allowed slavery to continue and
>allowed slaves to be considered .6 of a person for representation purposes
>is basically a concession to property owners at the expense of human rights.
>>

>So, if the founders, in your view, respected slavery more than human
>rights, does this mean that slavery is morally justified?

  Not at all, this is just an example of the founding fathers making a
  comromise favoring property holders that is explicitly in the constitution.
  It should surprise no one that the founders would find property rights
  important, they were in general large property holders.

>It can be enshrined anywhere you want, but it remains misleading nonsense.
>The white population systematically looted the black population, and
>thus gained a very high standard of living. If you then average white
>and black standards of living together, you arrive at a false description
>of the standard of living of the "average" south african. In Transkei where
>life expectencies are in the mid 30's, or in the workers Hostels where
>men spend years of their lives living in squalid overcrowded baracks
>amidst prison-like conditions, forbidden to visit with wives or children
>and working in the worlds most dangerous mines for terrible salaries,
>the notion that averaging out standards of living with white suburbanites
>in the JHB suburbs produces an impressive number, might not be appreciated.

  I have no doubt that I would find conditions poor, nevertheless the fact
  remains that South Africa has the highest GNP per capita in Africa. The
  fact also remains that black residents of socialist countries to the
  north stream into South Africa at a problematic rate. They do this because
  as pathetic as conditions may seem, they apparently are better in South
  Africa. Examination of GNP per capita figures available in any almanac makes
  this more plausible as most of the Socialist countries to the north
  have GNP per capitas more than an order of magnitude down from that of
  South Africa.

  The above paragraph could easily describe conditions in half or more of the
  countries in the world. There is not a country of any size which has
  prospered without a market economy. South Africa does have this much going
  for it. There is not a country of any size which has developed well without
  a market economy. The Soviet Union is probably the most successful non
  market economy in the world, I think the results there are pretty miserable.
  Since you are quoting Slovo as a source of first resort and Slovo is
  pretty much a Leninist It would appear you are endorsing such views. Slovo
  is pretty well accepted by american and european communists who appear
  to me to be pretty much Leninist in orientation. Leninists will certainly
  remove a market economy in South Africa, the consequences of this are pretty
  predictable based upon Russian, East european experiences. If you are
  endorsing Slovo and the ANC vision then you are by and large endorsing
  the Russian model. The results may be good for black south africans in the
  short term, but in the long term almost certainly will result in fewer
  human rights and less wealth even by the poor standards of South Africa.
  The pattern of reduction in human rights and wealth may well follow the
  type of evolution that occured in Rhodesia, I doubt many people in that
  country feel Mugabe has done them any good. The Rhodesian example is probably
  the closest analog to South africa.

  Slovo it should be noted is Russian born. There are many who believe he is
  a KGB plant a la Rudolph Hermann. I express no view on this since I have
  no interest in such a determination and have little knowledge of evidence
  that bears on this.

  Since you advocate elimination of private property this is consistent, and
  such an elimination also implies the elimination of a market economy.

>A little statistics is a dangerous thing.

 Ignoring them can be as well. There is no large pure socialist economy that
 has attained reasonable success in either human rights or in standard of
 living. I therefore suggest we maintain private property and a market
 economy.

 Countries which started poor and socailized have not improved, but have gotten
 poorer. Rhodesia now Zimbabwe and Tanzania are examples. Julius Neyere is
 about as benevolent and talented a leader as one can find, yet his gentle
 socialist experiment had disappointing results.


>I realize that it would simplify your rhetorical task if I were defending
>the Soviet record, but since I am not, you will have to try to defend
>your position on its own dubious merits.

The dubious proposition is that socialism is not a successful system for
building national wealth. I think this is eminently establishable. The most
successful non market economy of a large state has been the soviet union. If
you are proposing a non market economy that will work you must deal
with the Communist failures. Why will yours work when the Eastern block did
not.

A pure socialist system dispenses with a market economy.

>You need define your terms a little better before you can make any sense.
>If Mobutu's Zaire is "socialist", but Sweden is not, you are using a
>very nonstandard definition.

I should have said Mozambique, not Zaire. I believe the majority flow comes
from mozambique. Significant flow comes from 5-6 countries from angola to
Tanzania, including zaire.

I consider Sweden to be a mixed economy. They have preserved the market
economy and at present are moving more towards a less socialist mix.

I have been impressed that when swedish businessmen visit the US they
generally bring large amounts of cash to take advantage of the "low" US prices
on consumer goods. Not many US businessmen take cash to Europe to buy VCRs
and Camcorders, clothes, etc .


--
Graham Flower ms 90-TT               |  Better to have convictions and act on
Hewlett-Packard  350 W Trimble Rd    |  them, even if they are wrong, than to
Microwave Semiconductor Division     |  waffle in indecision endlessly.
San Jose, California, 95131          |
 [e-mail]             |