From: Blanc <blancw@cnw.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 18:58:11 +0800
To: CYPHERPUNKS@ssz.com
Subject: Re: poverty traps (Re: Sa
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19971027024339.006adea0@cnw.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



harka@nycmetro.com wrote:

>Further it is a social issue of importance also for Cypherpunks.
>Obviously we don't want governments "taking care of people", but
>desire individual freedom, self-determination and independence
>instead. However, as proven such things are possible in the "free
>market" only to a limited degree, i.e not applicable by default to
>everybody, IMHO.
   [. . .]
>If anybody _does_ have a solution, that enables _all_ people
>(regardless of background) to become truly free and also provides a
>realistic way to achieve that (for everybody), then I'll be more
>than happy to listen and to adjust my own perspective.
..................................................


The concept of a free market is not that it will "make you" free, nor that
it shall "provide you" ("you" being any one engaged in the exchange of
goods/services) with a perfect life, free of worry and the work of thought
and decision-making, creating the "perfect life" solution for everybody.
A free market doesn't "do things" for a person in spite of themselves.

In a free market scenario it is intended that any individual will be a free
agent - free from government interferance, free from government compulsion
- to create their *own* life's "solution", satisfactory to themselves
(regardless of whether it agrees with, or is at variance to, any one else's
standards of living). 

It is intended that an individual will be left to their own devices, to
seek out the methods which they themselves calculate will lead to the
achievement of their own goals, according to their own vision of success  -
that is, not the government's vision of success, nor the vision of their
neighbor, or of their mother-in-law, or anyone else who wants to shape
one's life for them and tell one what to do with it and how (no, Jim
Choate, I am not discriminating against Mothers-in-law, I'm just using them
as a stereotypical example of an interfering busy-body.  Don't worry about
it.).

It is way too easy to say that if you don't like something (like working
for a certain employer) you should change employers (easier to say than
done).   But the real aim of this argument is against the attitude of
tolerance, of tolerating the unacceptable or uncomfortable; it is that when
a person finds themselves seemingly trapped, they should not merely suffer
the circumstance (or worse, whine about it to everyone within earshot), but
should rather orient themselves towards finding a creative solution and
never cease searching for a way out.  Because nothing is created or
advanced into improvement by merely tolerating the intolerable, by just
"taking what was given", or from continuing to bear up under low standards
of functioning.   

The "free market " is not for the purpose of freeing everyone from the work
of solving their own problems; the idea is to leave them free to negotiate
with others on the terms of their interactive business arrangements (you
know - work/pay, hours/compensation, overtime/stock options, your place/my
place, etc.  Ideally, that is.  As everyone knows, we do not live in a
"pure" free-market economy, therefore these negotiations are presently all
regulated, to force everyone into a standardized success & happiness).   

There are many obstacles to overcome in an imperfect world, in an imperfect
society, in an imperfect economy, under imperfect governments, not to
mention all the competition.  It is very discouraging and sometimes you
want to hug your Teddy Bear for comfort [ :>) ].  But sometimes the first,
and largest,  obstacle to overcome is one's own pessimism and negativity
against mustering up the courage and creativity to "push the envelope".
This fatalism is what is being criticized.

    ..
Blanc