From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 8:06 AM
To: Franklin Schmidt
Cc: LPSM-Discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [LPSM-Discuss] Re: Equality, Emotional Distress, Government
as Super-Corporation, etc.


Franklin Schmidt [mailto:fschmidt@digdb.com] wrote:

> What does "crypto-anarchist" mean?

Secretly or tacitly or implicitly anarchist.

> Do you mean "median hourly productivity" or "median hourly 
> income" which are very different things?

As every economist knows, they are rigidly linked. Any system in which 
productivity does not match income is at disequilibrium, and will quickly 
correct itself in a free market with reasonably low transaction costs.

> free association may be oppressive.  Free association
> is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to avoid 
> oppression. 

Are you ever going to tell us how -- aside from detecting the presence of 
cubes -- to discriminate oppression from non-oppression? Why should we not 
believe that you will cry "oppression!" whenever you wish you had choices 
other than the ones you have?

> Limited liability law is biased in favor 
> of capital and against labor and consumers

The bias is quite small, and you've cited no evidence (e.g. in the record 
of tort awards) for the effect you claim it causes in product safety. As 
for its alleged effect on working conditions, your claim is contradicted 
by both the academic consensus and the empirical data.

Legal biases in the other direction are quite large: union antitrust 
exemptions, closed shop laws, laws limiting what contractual provisions 
that employers and employees may freely agree to, plant closing laws, 
minimum wage laws, maximum hours laws, plant closure notice, mandatory 
family leave, "equal pay for equal work" laws, product safety codes, 
rent control laws, building codes, and lax bankruptcy rules.

> Do marxian anarchists believe in private property, as I do?

Sort of, because they fantasize as you do about worker-owned co-ops and 
collectives, that magically avoid incentives for self-interest in their 
internal and external transactions. Russell's fantasy is a good example.

The true test of your marxism is this: if limited shareholder liability 
were eliminated, but working conditions didn't become appreciably less 
"abysmal", would you concede that labor is indeed being reasonably 
compensated, or would you advocate further legal changes in favor of workers?

> > Bertrand Russell's _Proposed Roads to Freedom_
> 
> Could you do me the favor of summarizing 
> what he is trying to say?

See above.

> I strongly support personal bankruptcy laws 
> (which are now being eroded by republicans).
> This helps shield workers from losing 
> everything in the worst case.

So between a consumer who negligently (or fraudulently) takes on more 
debt than she can ever repay, and a shareholder who simply invests in a 
stock, you'd have the government shield the negligent defrauder, but not 
the innocent shareholder?

brian@holtz.org
http://humanknowledge.net