regulated libertarianism

December 24, 2004

I have been struggling to understand the position of libertarians who

advocate entry level docs and expanded scope of practice since these

goals create barriers to practice and increased government oversight of

the field. OTOH, a politician must be pragmatic. If one must contend

with licensing laws, then perhaps a viable libertarian position is make

sure those laws are as broad and liberal as possible. But its a

slippery slope that depends on the ends justifying the means. In order

to expand one's scope and thus the right to do more as one pleases in

contractual relationships requires legislation. In other words, it

requires more government, not less, to enact such changes. We are

still left with a morass of rules detailing who can do what and when,

most of which has nothing to do with public safety and enforcement of

contracts. So I would say the ends does not justify the means.

Libertarian rules within a cloistered elite association that also works

actively to prevent nonmembers from plying the same trade without

joining the " guild " are not libertarian at all. I hadn't thought of it

this way till Roger mentioned it the other day, but such ideas of

licensing and professional associations are downright feudal.

Capitalism was supposed to overthrow feudalism. In other words, if you

had property, you didn't need to join a club to play ball, the ultimate

freedom, with one catch

I must digress. Unfortunately, the only capitalism that can ever work

is one where every one has capital to begin with. While it might sound

ironically communist, the only way capitalism will ever overthrow

feudalism is if each citizen is given a piece of federal land as was

promised and never delivered under the federal homestead act (passed

just 14 years after Marx's manifesto was first published, BTW). The

first property upon which all wealth was built has always been land.

And most of the land was taken by force at some point. If you were

there first and had enough guns, you and your heirs had power in

perpetuity unless your country was conquered or usurped in some way.

So the idea that the rich worked hard for what they got is not quite

true. If families didn't claim land as their own by force at some

point, there would be no such gap between haves and have nots. While

there certainly have been rags to riches story of note here in the US,

most of the money is still " old money " . Has anyone considered that the

Republican plan for an ownership society ironically has this same

communist appeal as the homestead act of 1862. Instead of taking money

from citizens to shore up the government red ink, the money will be

made available to invest in the stock market. While this may seem a

boon for the wall street crowd and major corps (which it will), it also

is a way for the workers to gain control of the means of production by

owning them. The workers can't spend this money as they see fit, so

its not really pure libertarian. Its really a government program

designed to redirect workers money (and thus power?) to the producers

instead of the regulators. What could be more communist than that?

I must digress further. Eventually, energy and production will be so

cheap and the only commodity of any value will be information that the

only sensible society will have to be this sort of communist

libertarianism. If all goods can be produced virtually free by

nanotechnology using unlimited free energy some day, then ownership of

capital will cease to be a concept at all. And since the ownership of

information will always be difficult if not impossible to police, there

will eventually be very few commodities left at all. It will probably

be a luxury to be served by other humans in restaurants and

coffeehouses (consider already ATMs, automatic checkout, voicemail

systems, do I need to go on). In such a society where everyone is

trained to manipulate information, how will one's compensation be

determined? It couldn't possibly be a system of " from each according

to their abilities and to each according to their needs " . :-) As long

as I do my job, then my nanotech replicator will remain active and I

will be able to satisfy my every desire (yet I would feel no need to

accumulate stuff because I can always create anything I need when I

need it). Some scientists think we will see this science fiction world

this century barring any deviations from progress as usual (war, alien

invasion, plague, etc.).

But its a long capitalist road to hoe until then. But since its

inevitable, why not level the playing field with capital once and for

all and then just get on with the birth of a new great society. If you

still blow it after you get your " 40 acres and a mule " , then its tough

luck, hombre.

Chinese Herbs

December 24, 2004

I've sort of been paying half attention to these Marxist-Communist ramblings

of yours, but every once in a while something catches my eye that stands out

as such baloney that I must reply. The following statement is as

representative as any:

Unfortunately, the only capitalism that can ever work is one where every one

has capital to begin with.

You've got to be kidding. Think of it this way - you can use your brain to

make capital. It's America. Did Bill Gates, or Ralph Nader (you probably

like him better) get where they are, because they started with 40 acres and

a mule?

Bart Paulding

Friday, December 24, 2004 3:19 PM

cha