RE:

[Sanjeev Sabhlok <sabhlok@almaak.usc.edu>]

On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, Charudatt wrote:

> Sanjeev Sabhlok[SMTP:sabhlok@almaak.usc.edu] wrote:
> 
> >What are you saying here. Let us be clear: In an ideal world,
> "Government
> >is us and we are the government."
> >
> >Right?
> 
> right! [in an ideal world, my view]

Only one point here. Nature made a real world in which competition and
chance play a major role. I think that if Nature could do that and create
human beings out of dust clouds after 10 billion years of work, then this
is the essential nature of the ideal world:  competition and chance. I'm
happy to believe that this real world is quite ideal, and wish to learn
from it than to change it to something 'more ideal.'

As a scientist, my job is to analyze the real world and not to imagine
other worlds which do not exist. We are therefore writing an
	
	ideal (best) manifesto for a real world

and NOT
	real (pragmatic) manifesto for an ideal world
nor,	ideal manifesto for an ideal world.

The entire manifesto is based on the study of mankind, empirically. I have
repeatedly shown you that people behave economically, either as a banker,
or as an engineer migrating to the USA, or in any other capacity.

Nothing that is in the manifesto so far is my wishful thinking, and we
don't need nor care for any wishful thinking (e.g. like Socialism or
Marxism) at the fag end of the 20th century. 

> Yes, you are not born as government any more than you are born as
> market. 

I keep on claiming and you know, but keep on refusing to agree, that we
are all born 'the market' because markets are nothing human beings
demanding and supplying things. Even a baby needs some things (a bed and
clothes, for example), and therefore represents the market. Ask the
supplier of infant's nappies if there is a market there or not. 

Babies are not government, however.

> But the notion of a government you "choose to join or not"
> sounds to me a lot more Hobbesian than a social contract.

I choose government as a career, in which I spend the rest of my life
fulfilling the Social Contract. If you don't like me, as a citizen, you
can throw me out, based on rules you make. I exist for your benefit, not
you for mine. 

> I see "government" as you and your neighbors getting together
> periodically to decide how you want your street policed, going to town
> meetings to influence the spending of the local taxes, and in the
> present [primitive] system periodically visiting or demanding visits
> from your state and federal representative to add your voice to the
> decision making of how taxes are levied and spent [of course with
> advancing technology much of the decision making can be formulated as
> referenda that is electronically voted]

You are talking now of democracy and local self-governance. That is not
what I am disputing. 

> > . . . The only
> >question why we are debating things on this list is to determine
> precisely
> >the exact role we want our government in India to play.
> >
> >On the other hand, I do claim that markets are us and we are
> >markets. 

> It is possible to withdraw from markets just as it is possible to
> withdraw from government. You could after all go off into the forest and
> live off the land [as Ram, Sita, & Laxman did]. 

Except for some exceptional cases of children brought up by wolves,
everyone is associated with the market at all times. If, as in your case,
Ram Sita and Laxman went off for a period to live 'off the land' then,
based on the fact that they distributed work between themselves based on
each person's comparative advantage [some gathered food, others cooked it,
some brought fibres, others made clothes], a market existed in that
society of three individuals.

Markets exist when two persons exchange ANY good/ service between
themselves. If the world had only two persons, a market would be formed! 
It is as simple as that. Thereafter, every decision has to be based on the
most efficient allocation of resources between people, based on their
comparative advantage. The need for government does not arise till much
later, though.

Looks like I left out the def. of markets. That is causing immense
confusion. Sorry about that. I will define markets at once, maybe
tomorrow.

> I'm still blinking at the last statement:
> "Markets are the most complete form of democracy ever created".
> In a market a person's power is determined by the amount of money they
> hold, in a democracy it is one person one vote. Is it then your
> objective to create a government of "one Rupee one vote"?

This confusion arises because we don't have a clear def. of markets. Let
us resolve by defining properly.
 
> If true this valuation vector must include components for greed,
> collusion, and corruption. I don't know if it is meaningful to us but
> send me the reference again I'll try to read it.

Yes. The Price of a commodity or service in a free market inclues all
kinds of motives and all kinds of information, both private and public. 

Hayek's paper: I've misplaced the paper; will get you the details later.
 
Actually, I am getting too tired of these debates which seem to be going
nowhere for whatever reason (absence of definitions, etc). So, I would
strongly urge that we restrict ourselves to the rules of debate. At least,
my fingers are not allowing me this luxury of responding to everything.
Pain is re-emerging after one year of respite. 

Sanjeev