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

[Damien Sullivan]

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 01:26:09PM -0600, Kelly Anderson wrote:

> >> "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.
> 
> Technology at all costs could easily be evil. Technology created by

at all costs == "whatever society does"

> free people for individual reasons that does not impact negatively on
> the liberties or environment of their neighbors is usually good for
> both rich and poor.

That's a lot of qualifications.

> > 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

> Clearly there are good governments and bad governments, but what is
> good and what is bad? Is a good government the one that creates the
> greatest enduring works of architecture? Or the one that has happier

This is needlessly tendentious.  You yourself were just talking about
technology being "good for the poor" and "promote the well-being".  Use
the same standard.

> > 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.
> 
> Ok, except that only ~0.001%(a made up number) of their taxes go to
> basic research while ~55% (another made up number) go to social

Why use made-up numbers?  A quick look around shows abotu 2% of federal
spending going to research.  Welfare's harder to tease apart, but maybe
5% by one analysis, though that might have included state/local spending
too.

Most social spending is pensions, you pay in now and get paid later, or
payments for health care.  Actual food stamp or general assistance
welfare is pretty small and most people who get those do so only
temporarily, while down on their luck.  Hell, after Clinton's welfare
reform, I don't think general assistance welfare even exists anymore.
Five years and you're out.

> > 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.
> 
> I'm with you up to the point you say "gains are distributed somewhat
> equitably"... Why is that the government's job?

How else could do it?

> >> 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.
> 
> Yes! But why? Because it enables progress in capitalism,
> infrastructure and technology. The poor are helped by indoor plumbing
> and inoculations. They are helped by the practical outcome of

Also because it builds sewers, provides better police and judicial
systems, performs land reform when needed (as advocated by Rothbard,
http://mises.org/daily/2473 )  That indoor plumbing you mention is
connected to government water pipes.  It doesn't just enable progress in
infrastructure and technology, it builds the infrastructure and funds
the research.

> > 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.
> 
> People who can afford to fail innovate for sure. One of the greatest
> innovators of our time is Sir Richard Branson. He can afford to fail,
> and he does (Virgin Condoms!) And people like Sir Richard are critical
> to the healthy progress of our world. The completely desperate rarely
> innovate in ways that are as exciting as the first kind of innovation.

Well, yeah.  You seem to be responding in length to my parenthesis, when
the real point was that security -- including that from safety nets --
enhances innovation.

The US is lagging in small businesses compared to countries with
universal health care.  It's safe for a Swede to go start their own
business, but an American is gambling with their life, or at least with
bankruptcy.

-xx- Damien X-)