From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Sep 18 2005 - 17:38:08 BST
Dear Wim,
> You 12 Sep 8:40 -0400 still don't answer my point that individuals are not
> enough for building and maintaining dikes.
I really don't know who other than individual human beings build and
maintain dikes. A group working together towards a common end is still
made up of individuals like you and I and everyone else..
> And you either need to convinde
> all who benefit from them to contribute financially or to force enough of
> them to do so, to prevent free-rider behaviour that makes it inpossible to
> finance them at all. Whether we are talking about a 'collectives' or about
> herds of bureaucrats, engineers and workmen is beside the point.
Yes. Most people would agree that it's OK for the government to impose
taxes for roads, dikes, courts, police, firemen, and soldiers. Beyond that
you'll start getting an argument.
> You conntered my "Collective financing by everyone benefitting from such
> projects needs to be organized by governments." with your "Oh, if only
> government subsidies did benefit everyone. Obviously, they don't in every
> case. There's a hotel here in town subsidized by our local government that
> I've never been in, much less stayed in.". Again that is not the point. Of
> course governments should try to tax (e.g. for dike building) only those
> who beneifit from what they do with the money. And of course governments
> should try to use the money they tax from everyone for projects that -taken
> together- benefit all. If they don't, that's not an argument against
> subsidizing, but for better democratic processes that make sure that all
> taxpayers benefit equally and not only those who voted these particular
> politicians in power or who contributed financially to their election
> campaign. (You surely don't require your local government to organize that
> at all local taxpayers get a chance to stay in turn in that particular
> hotel. If only those that don't benefit equally from some other subsidized
> project. I wonder -with you- why that hotel is subsidized though. I can't
> imagine a private enterprise like a hotel being subsidized in the
> Netherlands, unless e.g. it is in a historic building and we want to
> maintain the historic character of a town. But than the fact that it is
> used by a hotel is irrelevant. Any owner would -and should- get is.)
Yes, our government is constantly meddling in private affairs when
it should keep hands off. Pork barrel spending is a huge problem in this
country.
> You wrote:
> "I agree [with the objective need for a bigger government in the
> Netherlands than in the USA for protection against the water] if you're
> focusing exclusively on the size of government relative to protection
> against the sea. But in terms of social welfare programs, I believe the
> size of Netherlands government is relatively larger than the USA."
>
> Fine, because that was the only point I wanted to make there.
> By the way, I also think that there is a need for more social welfare
> programs in the Netherlands than in the USA. We are much more densily
> populated and there would be much more unhealthy competition for natural
> resources, more criminality, more contagious diseases etc. than in the USA
> if we would have the same relative size of government. These were the very
> areas in which Dutch city governments became active very early in the
> Middle Ages, besides water management of course.
I don't quite see where density of population requires socialistic
solutions. New York City is about as densely populated as you can get, yet
it's free market dynamism is apparent, as Pirsig pointed out.
> You countered my "Taxes as percentage of GDP are only a measure of relative
> size of government and private sector, not of interference of one into the
> other." with your "Since taxes are involuntary, I consider them government
> interference.".
>
> Only if you consider the individuals taxed as participating exclusively in
> the private sector and not in the public sector. If your public sector is
> not democratic enough to make individuals identify with and participate in
> it then there is something wrong with your type of democracy, of not
> technically, than at least in the political culture nurtured by it. Taxes
> should be experienced in large extent. Even if you consider taxing as per
> definition interference in the private sector, taxes are not a good measure
> of such interference, as taxing is not the only way and different types of
> taxes (e.g. direct or indirect ) interfere (in the sense of hamper) the
> functioning of the private sector to a different extent.
You seem to be saying that we should be happy to pay taxes in spite of
bureaucratic inefficiency and waste, as demonstrated in the New Orleans
hurricane fiasco.
> You continued:
> "I don't think it's good to make people economically dependent for their
> well-being on any others, whether religious or government. An individual
> cannot be both dependent and free at the same time."
>
> Isn't that a bit too categorical?
> 1) People are dependent on others anyway for their well-being. (If only
> because most of what I consume is produced by others and can't be produced
> by myself because I haven't got the expertise.
I don't call exchanging goods and services in a free market being
dependent. By dependent I mean relying on another's work for support, like
children on parents.
> Also for instance because
> the money system has to be maintained collectively for people to be able to
> exchange what they produce.)
Don't get me started on the money system. The government robs us of our
savings every day by monopolizing the money supply. Surely Europeans
remember the inflationary post WWI days.
> So I'd rather say that it is not good to make
> people MORE economically dependent on others. 2) Sometimes some extra
> economic dependence on others (and yes, some decrease of freedom) can
> improve well-being. There can be trade-offs. Making yourself dependent on
> police and on a system of administration of justice to protect you from
> criminals for instance. And don't be mistaken: the need for security is
> just as 'economical' as any other need. You can even buy it from
> specialized firms. Isn't BOTH being dependent (because of participation in
> static patterns of value, is this context 3rd level ones) AND being free
> (having DQ available) part of the human condition of every individual? We
> depend on governments, other market parties, family/friends and experts AND
> we are free to choose and swap dependenceis.
Yes, I agree about trade offs between security and freedom. The degree of
sacrificing one for the other constitutes the basis of the argument
between liberals and conservatives (as those terms are used in the U.S.)
But, it's more than a matter of security. Liberals also want economic
equality by redistributing wealth. That's another huge bone of contention.
Best regards,
Platt
>
> With friendly greetings,
>
> Wim
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 18 2005 - 17:56:56 BST