Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsri!sask!alberta!cdshaw From: cdshaw@alberta.UUCP (Chris Shaw) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Ok, so what is socialism? Re: Down with Democracy! Message-ID: <246@pembina.alberta.UUCP> Date: Tue, 3-Mar-87 16:03:08 EST Article-I.D.: pembina.246 Posted: Tue Mar 3 16:03:08 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 4-Mar-87 02:40:55 EST References: <3047@watdcsu.UUCP> <4197@utcsri.UUCP> <3059@watdcsu.UUCP> <5471@watmath.UUCP> <630@sask.UUCP> <747@looking.UUCP> Reply-To: cdshaw@pembina.UUCP (Chris Shaw) Distribution: can Organization: U. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB Lines: 53 In article <747@looking.UUCP> @looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >And thus, by anybody's definition, my remark with respect to socialists and >their belief in the rightness of theft still stands. > >Or do you dispute my definition of theft -- "the taking of a person's >property against his or her will?" >-- >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 More lack of rigor. The concept of "property" in its capitalist sense does not exist in the (hard core) socialist context. It's like talking about polymorphism in the Pascal context. The term "polymorphism" simply doesn't exist when you're talking Pascal. So saying perjoratively that "Pascal doesn't believe in polymorphism" is silly, since such a statement implies that Pascal should, and is evil because it doesn't. Note that pushing this analogy too far is hazardous. Actually, a religious example in the vein of polytheism/monotheism works better since it's nontechnical. Anyway, that's not the only thing that's bogus about Brad's statements above. Basically, Brad is a utopian Libertarian. This means that he wants all his loot to himself, and will only give it to someone else if they have made a deal that requires his payment, or if he's feeling charitable. This ignores co-operative ventures on the large scale where someone has to lose. A social "hyperspace button", if you will. Which means that if 99% of the country decides that your farm has to be given up for some vital project, in Brad's dystopia, you can hit your hyperspace button, opt out of the social deal, and keep your farm. Until the Commies (:-) invade and take it over because the project was vital to the defence of the country from the Commies. Handwaving arguments to the effect of "but I'll contribute to defense" are of no effect. Why should I contribute if you will? (Otherwise, it's taxes, which are out of the question). If you're buying an army, why not buy a big one? Then you could take over the country, and screw all this libertarian bullshit, YOU OWN THE PLACE! To counteract this, everybody has his own army. How is this different from the middle ages? How is this different from free-ranging pirates in the 1600's? You think TODAY's arms spending is bad? I claim that piracy in 1670 was exactly the same as the Libertarian society Brad wants. Any pirate could own a ship, the captain was elected, you could move on if you didn't like the ship you were on..... Fine, but unproductive as hell. An economy based entirely on robbery. "Legal" piracy stopped in the early 1700's because the merchants supporting the robbing of other countries' ships realized that they could make more money at legitimate business. End of libertine hordes. More rigor, Brad. Less bogosity. -- Chris Shaw cdshaw@alberta University of Alberta CatchPhrase: Bogus as HELL !