From: Chad Perrin <perrin@...>
Date: 2009-04-19T17:16:38+09:00
Subject: Re: Goodbye Ruby - Hello Earth

--2B/JsCI69OhZNC5r
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 01:40:42PM +0900, Xeno Campanoli wrote:
> Free market wants cheap transaction cost, which is partly information cos=
t.=20
> Data processing cat help with that, but won't magically.  It is one of th=
e=20
> ironies of our era that the fastest way to get a free market and keep it =
is=20
> to eliminate large corporations, establish rules requiring 100% worker=20
> ownership, establish Georgist land and tax reforms, and generally set=20
> everyone at close to the same level of income, all things best done by=20
> government.  Without people working at similar levels of scale and in a=
=20
> fair system, you just won't get there anyway, so just opt for real=20
> democratic socialism, which at least mitigates the greatest excesses of=
=20
> totalitarianism of any stripe and allows some market workings which reall=
y=20
> help.  All the crap from the Reaganites was just bate and switch, and the=
y=20
> have conned us to the tune of tens of trillians of dollars with it.

I don't think there's anything ironic about the notion that eliminating
large corporations is necessary to secure a free market.  After all,
corporations are *by definition* the result of market intervention by
force.  Government steps in and defines a special class of legal entity
with its own "rights" called the corporation, and suddenly all hell
breaks loose.  Eliminate this interference with market forces, and many
of the hurdles standing in the way of a healthy free market economy will
evaporate.

I don't see how "requiring 100% worker ownership", equalizing income
levels regardless of the value or cost of one's contributions, or making
other interventionist moves is in any way compatible with a free market,
though.  That *would* be ironic, since it would be self-contradictory.

How exactly is the act of prohibiting people from being rewarded in
proportion to their contributions part of a "fair system"?

There are other options than fascism and socialism, y'know.


>=20
> I think Ruby will help cheapen information, but the real problem isn't wi=
th=20
> ruby, but with the rules of ownership and the legacy of power owned from=
=20
> spoils rather than merit activity.  Money is a poor reflection of merit,=
=20
> especially nowadays, and the biggest resource wasters are not those raisi=
ng=20
> taxes, but those who cut them so they could waste more resources=20
> personally.  The greenest among us are the homeless people, so it makes=
=20
> most sense that others should be massively taxed to subsidize the homeles=
s=20
> people to do some real savings.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

--=20
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
Quoth Bill McKibben: "The laws of Congress and the laws of physics have
grown increasingly divergent, and the laws of physics are not likely to
yield."

--2B/JsCI69OhZNC5r
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAknq3M8ACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKWxjwCeOPfsImO+sl+8mM1sfK75Ssya
WsoAoL8g5hFIHir9Z2RZTeEzishap7U/
=Bf4J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--2B/JsCI69OhZNC5r--