COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00003 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.cb ANOTHER THEORY OF JUSTICE AND THE ORGANIZATION OF SOCIETY
C00009 00003	.cb SOME CONSEQUENCES OF POPULATION STABILITY
C00015 ENDMK
C⊗;
.cb ANOTHER THEORY OF JUSTICE AND THE ORGANIZATION OF SOCIETY


The present ideological situation - an outline

	The competition between capitalism and socialism (both the kinds
of socialism operated by communist parties and the kinds operated
by ideologies like that of the British Labor Party)
has existed on a world-wide scale since World War II with the following
curious result:
Economically, capitalism has been much more successful in providing high
standards of living and personal freedom, but in spite of this, capitalism
is in a state of ideological collapse.  Intellectuals everywhere, even
in the countries most benefitted by capitalism are turning to socialist
ideas, even when doing so requires denying what is before their eyes.


A principle of personal liberty -

	Membership in a particular society is voluntary.  Individuals
or groups have the right to leave theer society and join another, or
if a frontier exists, to found a new soiciety or even to live as a
hermit.  This has a corollary that a society wanting the continued
services of a kind of person, must treat such people well enough to
induce them to stay.

The importance of frontiers -

	Since our fundamental principle of justice is the voluntary
nature of society, the existence of actual opportunities to go somewhere
else is important for a good world  This section is a survey of the actual
and potential opportunities and the extent to which they are being
used.

.item←0
#. In no communist ruled country is emigration a right, and the amount
of actual emigration allowed is very small.  Yugoslavia permits its
citizens to take jobs elsewhere, so we can conclude that emigration
from Yougoslavia is limited by the opportunities available (the European
countries using foreign labor limit their social position) and by the
acceptability of Yugoslav society to potential emigrants.  Two communist
countries, East Germany and Cuba, allowed emigration for brief periods,
but had to forbid it after losing about 15α% and 10α% of their
respective populations to more attractive societies that were willing,
for political reasons, to accept the immigrants.

#. All non-communist countries permit emigration, but opportunities
for immigration are limited.  Europe accepts large amounts of temporary
labor, Britain accepts immigration from former colonies that use their
freedom from colonialism to persecute minorities, and there is virtually
an international labor market in first class scientists, entertainers,
literary and artistic figures, industrial managers, and capitalists.
People whose incomes don't depend on working (the rich and many pension
recipients) also have considerable freedom to migrate.

#. Within the U.S., Canada, and Australia, there is also a frontier
comparable to that of the nineteenth century in certain respects.
Namely, if you are willing to accept the living standards and hours
of work of a nineteenth century farmer, there is plenty of agricultural
land available at low prices, much of it abandoned by people who
find city life more attractive at least compared to the agricultural
standard of living the particular land will support.  Religious groups
like Hutterites, who value theer own society more than a high standard
of living find plenty of land for expansion.  The availability of this
land at a low price shows that there is only a small demand for this
kind of frontier.

	The situation for those wanting co-operative societies is even
better taan the above facts would indicate in societies whose tax systems
are based on income.  It is possible to avoid almost all taxes on
internally performed services by assigning them a low or no cash value.
Most of the government services are available without charge to members
of co-operative communities, e.g. welfare for those with low cash
incomes, education, care of any insane, mentally retarded or criminals
who turn up, and even social security pensions.  The failure of
co-operatives to grow, except for those based on religion, is an
indication that this way of life doesn't maintain its attractiveness,
probably because it doesn't permit enough effective individual
freedom.
.cb SOME CONSEQUENCES OF POPULATION STABILITY

	Present society in advanced countries is characterized by
a low ratio of capital to income.  The whole physical capital of the
U.S., houses, cars, factories, mines, roads, schools and buildings
correspond to about five years income.  Contrary to what many
people expect, this ratio is lower in America than in backward
countries, because while our capital is greater than theirs, our
productivity in the production of capital goods is also greater.
The ratio has been kept low by obsolescence that forces the
replacement of old capital, by wearing out, and by expansion of
production and population that keeps surviving old capital to a small
fraction of the total.

	It seems likely that U.S. population will stabilize sometime
soon, and many people think our technology will also stabilize.  This
has some interesting consequences that don't seem to have been noticed.
A society with a static technology and population will tend to
accumulate capital.  Expansion of productivity and expansion of
population will not dilute the old capital in labor terms.  Moreover,
if the labor cost of natural resources rise a lot from the present 5α%
of GNP, then the labor price of old capital will rise to meet the
replacement costs of the material in it.

	Imagine an America taat has had a stable population and a
stable technology for 200 years.  Imagine further that the labor
costs of natural resources have risen to 25α% of GNP because of
a need to use very low grade ores and the non-existence of a
technology that extracts them cheaply.  Such a society might have
fifty years of labor invested in capital, i.e. for each person, there
would be an amount of capital equal to what he could earn in a
lifetime.

	Let us try to imagine what this capital might consist of -
assuming present technology.  A family now living in a α$50,000
house would live in a α$500,000 house.  Assuming no servants, it
is difficult for us to imagine what such a house or apartment might
be like, but they will have had two hundred years to elaborate
their tastes.  Perhaps they will go in for ornament - a look at
the expensive Japanese furniture section of a Japanese department
store gives a hint.  However, there will also be elaboration in
mechanical and electronic gadgetry.

	The cities will be elaborately rebuilt.  Perhaps roads will
be underground, certainly delivery will be.  There will be elaborate
soundproofing, and plain concrete and asphalt won't be tolerated.

	The main social consequence will be that property will
dominate income again as it did until very recently.  Ability will
become less important than inherited social position.  At present
in America and other advanced countries, one's social position is
determined by one's job and not by one's inheritance.  In the event
that an equalitarian ideology dominated, your position would
be determined by what the redistributors decided to give you.
The tendency of such a society to become oligarchic would probably
be irrestistible.

	On the whole, I think I wouldn't like such a society and
am pleased to live in an era in which expansion is still possible.