Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: notesfiles Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hp-pcd!hpfclp!mike From: mike@hpfclp.UUCP (mike) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Orphaned Response Message-ID: <13600008@hpfclp.UUCP> Date: Tue, 15-Jan-85 18:28:00 EST Article-I.D.: hpfclp.13600008 Posted: Tue Jan 15 18:28:00 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 25-Jan-85 06:44:34 EST References: <-25200@gargoyle.UUCP> Lines: 134 Nf-ID: #R:gargoyle:-25200:hpfclp:13600008:37777777600:7663 Nf-From: hpfclp!mike Jan 21 15:28:00 1985 How can you believe that Socialism is better than Capitalism? Socialism places the group as the standard of value. The consequence of this that all Socialists blank-out is that it turns productive individuals into animals to be sacrificed for the group by the whims of any non-producers holding political power. All is just if it is in the name of "the people", "the society", or "the common good". That is the creed of Socialism. Those who are better and more productive are to be penalized because of their ability. The products of their work are confiscated and consumed by non-productive capitalism-hating looters. From each according to his ability to each according to his need is the equation that has time after time brought the productive industrial capacity of nations to a standstill. Yet you say this is better than Capitalism. It is perfectly rational for "the working group" to try to improve their situation. But to do this by acquiring political power to enforce laws that abrogate individual rights, that forces employers to pay certain salaries, that stifles competition among employers for the best workers available, and stagnates industry because they are no longer allowed to make a profit; this is the glory of Socialism. Yet you say this is better than Capitalism. You say: >> As the Industrial Revolution developed it became apparent to many that >> the working class, those who are hired by others to work for wages, were >> getting the short end of the stick in many ways. They were >> systematically excluded from a life of dignity and satisfaction (they >> still are). Is it more dignified and satisfying that no industry should exist so that the working class has not to worry about getting the short end of the stick? Is it more dignified and satisfying that there would be no employers because the the men of vision, the industrialists, the men willing to risk all that that they have in order to start a business are stopped by the penalties inflicted for their efforts? Is it more dignified and satisfying that those of no vision and little courage should beg and scratch for an existence simply because "the good of society" does not allow the "money hungry" capitalists to start a business and thus give those of lesser ability an honest paying job? Yet this is what Socialism advocates. >> Various socialists have emphasized different elements in the new society >> which they desire to create. But since the situation of the working >> class is a product of capitalism, socialists agree that capitalism has >> to go. I submit to you that the situation before Capitalism, before the Industrial Revolution was far, far worse. Before Capitalism, there was nothing more than a slave economy where the product of the slaves and serfs could at any time be siezed by whatever ruling gang was in power. The chance of getting ahead, of making life possible and bearable hardly existed at all. There were no factories to work for, no corporations, little technology, and few economic opportunities to pursue. At that time, if an individual didn't own the rights to land, he was practically forced to become a slave to those who did. The advent of Capitalism changed all this. With Capitalism came the concept of "making money" and of "making wealth". No longer was it necessary to loot, steal, or cheat those possessing wealth in order to acquire it. No longer was it necessary to depend on human slaves to create wealth. Capitalism is and will always be the only moral economic system available to man. It is the only system that does not sacrifice the virtuous to the non-virtuous or the individual to the group. Yet you say that Socialism is better. >> So that's a brief description of socialism. Let's have some discussion of >> democratic socialism on the net. "Democratic Socialism" is a misleading term; that is if you consider democracy a society that protects individual rights. If you consider a democracy any organization whereby all rights of the minority are subordinate or invalidated by the decisions of those elected to power, then what you really have is "Democratic Gang Warfare" where whatever leaders who have the biggest voting block can apply unlimited power and force against those who don't. A government without individual rights as the primary premise of its existence is nothing more than an atavistic example of the primitive hunter-gatherer tribes of the Stone Age. >> Libertarianism is a shallow ideology which defends private privilege, >> not public liberty. I will not defend the Libertarianism because I am not one of them nor do I believe that they hold individual rights as the keystone of their platform. If I am convinced otherwise, then more power to them. >> I invite all libertarians to buy a one-way ticket to Bhopal, India, >> where they will not have to deal with OSHA or EPA which are destroying >> our precious freedom in the USA. Do not lull yourself into thinking that industrial accidents wouldn't happen under Socialism. The only chance of this would be if the Socialists had their way and wiped out industry all together. Union Carbide may be responsible for the Bhopal Accident and if they are then the degree to which they make reparations and pay damages is the degree to which the men of that company hold human life as a standard of value, a standard by which all other values and actions can be measured. >> Does it ever occur to libertarians that taking some of the rich man's >> wealth and giving it the poor man can increase the poor man's freedom >> and result in a net increase in freedom? Are you serious?!? Money will not make a poor man free. A society or government that believes it is right in "taking" the wealth of the rich to give to the poor is nothing more than state of robbers and looters. Ah, but robbing and looting are just fine under Socialism because it's the group we're interested in, not those morally depraved philosphically impotent individuals that make up that society. Socialism is a moral blank check which will never amount to anything more than a tool that allows power-hungry bureaucrats to usurp the politcal freedom of the individual. >> Socialism aims to establish a society in which no man has arbitrary power >> over another simply because he possesses property. That is not the aim of Socialism. Socialism is a society where the individual has no rights, property or otherwise. And without property rights no other rights are possible. If a person does not own or is not justly compensated for the product of his work, then he does not own his life. He is a slave. Capitalism works by the virtue of property rights and by the virtue of free-market competition that demands the best from each of us. It works because those who have ability and work hard are rewarded and those who are lazy and imcompetent are not. But Capitalism can only work in a politically free climate that holds individual rights as its highest ideal. It's either/or. Either you have Capitalism and a society of free individuals or you have a caste society of the rulers and the workers. The caste society, unfortunately, is the predominate heritage of the human race. Socialism is the society for brainless insects and emotion-driven savages. Capitalism is for the intelligent, free, rational human being. A is A. Michael Bishop ihnp4!hpfcla!mike-b