Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!rutgers!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!ubc-vision!alberta!calgary!radford
From: radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,net.books
Subject: Re: Looking for Libertarian SF
Message-ID: <426@vaxb.calgary.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 5-Oct-86 19:28:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: vaxb.426
Posted: Sun Oct  5 19:28:18 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 9-Oct-86 00:38:36 EDT
References: <122@bigbang.UUCP> <612@3comvax.UUCP> <951@tekigm.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Calgary, Calgary, Ab.
Lines: 39
Keywords: anarcho-libertarian S.F.
Xref: watmath talk.politics.theory:13 net.books:4274
Summary: Mack Reynolds not at all libertarian

In article <951@tekigm.UUCP>, dand@tekigm.UUCP writes:
> Take a stab at Mack Reynolds, and his various "X in the 21st Century",
> such as "Reality in the 21st Century" and like that. His political
> system is what he calls a "technocracy", but actually appears to
> be a one-buck:one-vote sort of system, where those who control the
> wealth control the country...

I don't think I've read "Reality in the 21st Century", but I've read
others in this series.

I would not consider the political systems portrayed in Mack Reynolds'
fiction to be at all libertarian. I think "Fascist" might be a better 
description. By this I mean a polical system in which at least a 
facade of private ownership is maintained, but in which all important
economic decisions are decided by political, not market, forces.

My memory of the details of Mack Reynolds' societies is vague; for that
matter, I'm not sure he describes the political system in detail. I *am*
sure of my recollections regarding the general tone of his philosophy,
(technically, the philosophy of his characters, but this is so consistent
from novel to novel that he must either agree with it, or at least think
it is inevitable). This tone is distinctly non-libertarian.

An example I remember, from a book called something like "The Lagrangists":
The hero, a private investigator, I think, is recruited to solve the
problems of some space colony. Which he does. At the end he is quite
tempted to join the colony, but doesn't. The reason? The colony restricts
immigration to people of a certain intelligence level, which he doesn't
meet. It seems possible that the colonists would make an exception in
his case, but he thinks they should stick to their principles, so he
foregoes the opportunity. Apparently, this is not a satire; Reynolds seems
to think this sort of elitism is good.

The question that immediately comes to my mind, of course, is why these
intelligent people couldn't solve their own problems. This attachment
to non-objective status criteria is reminiscent of feudalism. It is quite
foreign to libertarianism.

    Radford Neal