[ExI] Strong libertarianism, societal good, & suffering (was: Cephalization, proles)

[Damien Sullivan]

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 01:42:35PM -0600, Kelly Anderson wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Damien Sullivan

> > "libertarianism with free good land was good for some poor" does not
> > generalize to "libertarianism is good for the poor".
> 
> Let's try a different approach... would you agree with the following statement:
> "The advance of technology, engineering and science has been good for
> the poor (and even better for the rich)."

Yes.

> If so, and I really do hope you believe that here of all places, then
> it follows that:
> "Whatever society does to promote the development of technology,
> engineering and science promotes the well being of everyone, including
> the poor (albeit in a delayed manner compared to the rich)."

Wow, no, that *totally* does not follow.  "Tech is good" does not mean
"whatever is done, no matter the cost, to advance tech, is good".

If tech develops faster in one country, at the cost of straving
children, that's not promoting the well-being of everyone.

I trust you see your fallacy.

Your other fallacy is to implicitly assume that the advance of
technology has been the *only* thing to benefit society, when in fact a
strong service-minded government can benefit society, especially the
poor, at even Stone Age tech levels.  The modern world has better tech,
it also has better government.  And while there's some positive
correlation between the two, it's far from absolute: the Indus Valley
civilization and ancient Egypt seem to have been better run than roughly
contemporaneous Babylonians and Assyrians.

> So the real answer to how to care for the poor is really:
> "What is the best system for pushing science, engineering and
> technology forward at the fastest possible pace."

Nope.

> You could answer this by saying, "Only government sponsored research
> is far enough out to really push the envelope."
> Or
> You could say, "Capitalism is the best at promoting technology,
> engineering and science."
> Or perhaps some other governmental form would be better at promoting
> these things.

Or, y'know, both: government funding of the public good of basic
research, plus companies in competitive markets competing to bring
innovations to market, while paying taxes to pay for the basic research
their profits rest on.

> If what we are truly after is the well being of mankind, then the
> government that best serves mankind is the government that allows for
> freedom in developing as much technology, science and engineering as
> possible.

Or the government that best serves mankind is one that allows ofr
freedom in development while also making sure no one gets screwed over
and that gains are distributed somewhat equitably.

> Perhaps there are other ways of looking at the world, but progress in
> the liberal arts has not helped today's poor to be ahead of their
> brethren from 100 years ago.

Progress in democracy has.

> > The 19th century lets us combine these: "libertarianism with free good
> > land [and various other geographic qualifiers] was better for the poor
> > than war-torn and land-starved quasi-feudal aristocracies" does not
> > generalize to "libertarianism is the bestest thing ever".
> 
> OK, so how does social democracy push forward technology, science and
> engineering (by engineering I mean infrastructure) better than
> libertarianism? (Real question)

More reliably produces educated and healthy people and provides a safety
net supporting risky innovation.  It's people who can afford to fail --
or the completely desperate -- who take risks in life.  People on the
edge who have something that barely works tend to be really
conservative.

> If you grant that slavery in the northern states was much less than
> that in the south, and the economic power of the north exceeded that
> of the south (leading to the historical outcome of the civil war),
> then you might be inclined to believe that libertarian capitalism did
> more to develop industry and technology because that's exactly what
> happened in the north. Note that industrialization in the south lagged
> considerably.

True, except the North wasn't all that libertarian.  Public schooling,
protective tariffs, "internal improvements" from the federal government,
possibly various state laws and regulations that we'd have to be a more
dedicated historian to have a good picture of.

-xx- Damien X-)