At 12:23 AM 11/09/1999 -0800, you wrote:
>
>The biggest problem I see with your brand of libertarianism (the whole
>anti-government/pro-capitalism schtick) is that it replaces the power of
>the state with the power of the corporations. At least the state is
>nominally under citizen control. We know the corporations aren't......
>
One of the things I find funniest about the entire *modern* laissez-faire
arguement (reganomics/Thatcherism/Mulronyism) is how close to Marxism it is
in its fundamental assumption -- that the organisation of the economy
(Marxist: substructure) determines the organisation of the polity (Marxist:
superstructure). This is, in fact, what makes it "modern" -- and a far
cry from what Adam Smith actually said. Mind you, there are good reasons
for this change -- first, most of even the most prominent economists have
never actually read Mr. Smith (they are densely written tome sin 200 year
old English), and second, the academic radicalism of their education *was*
Marxism, so that even the non-Marxist teachers were forced to argue within
the terms of Marxist thought to attempt to debunk it.
In fact, Adam Smith never believed in an unregulated economy (and, yes, I
*have* read his works -- as a historian of a related topic, I had no
choice!) -- even in "The Wealth of Nations" he is firm that, while leaving
the economy as free *as possible*, the government *must* regulate the
behaviour of companies to ensure that the rules remain fair, and that the
non-economic values and needs of society are respected. These latter
positions have gotten lost in the definition of laissez-faire, and
capitalism, since (imho) they tend to be both more sophisticated than
diagrams drawn on the back of napkins, and to interfere with the unfettered
use of corporate power.
What needs to be questioned is the assumption that the economy underlies
all aspects of society. This is a pretty schematic, but, like all
schematics, a simplification. What of ethical values? Can an economy
(as some idealised independent thing) overcome, say, a socially-embedded
revulsion against some institution it "requires"? Could the demands of an
economy organised on the lines of modern laissez-faire principles force a
society to reverting to widespread child labour? (This is not a
far-fetched example -- I once sat in bemused amazement while an intelligent
advocate of the modern laissez-faire economy "explained" to me that
discrimination and child labour were matters of free choice in a properly
run -- ie. unregulated -- economy. I decided he was right: in an
*unregulated* economy, they are.....!)
I think the answer is no, and I think that is enough to debunk the entire
principle of the economy as *necessary* organising principle for the rest
of society. An economy does not exist outside the people who participate
in it, and it cannot force on them behaviours that go against other,
equally or more, deeply held principles and institutions.
This leads to the conclusion that the various pro-MS arguements based on
the "obvious" benefit to all of a completely unregulated monopoly fall flat
on their nose when applied to any real world situation. If the benefit is
not obvious to those who are supposed to be receiving it, perhaps becuase
it clashes with other values and deemed benefits, then what benefit is there?
After listening to many an end user/consumer on the topic of their actual
MS applications, it seems to me that the *real* benefit MS could bend its
mind to offering would be stable, simpler applications, perhaps packaged,
not as one huge, integrated monster, but as a series of small applications
to which one can buy the modular add-ons one needs.....
But, hey, isn't that the open source model?......
Janus
(who, as you can by now tell, had *years* of academic training, and *loves*
to share it!)
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
