Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!looking!brad From: brad@looking.UUCP Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Ok, so what is socialism? Re: Down with Democracy! Message-ID: <751@looking.UUCP> Date: Wed, 4-Mar-87 13:47:39 EST Article-I.D.: looking.751 Posted: Wed Mar 4 13:47:39 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 5-Mar-87 19:43:41 EST References: <3047@watdcsu.UUCP> <4197@utcsri.UUCP> Reply-To: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) Distribution: can Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd. Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 71 In article <246@pembina.alberta.UUCP> cdshaw@pembina.UUCP (Chris Shaw) writes: >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. > Doesn't it? "property", or more generally "rights to control or enjoy something" is a concept used in all forms of socialism except for total communism. In today's high-taxation system, even the nomenclature shows that a concept of property exists. You get your salary (the one the employer) pays, and then a tax is calculated on that. It is said that your salary is $30,000 and you pay a tax of $10,000 on that. It is *not* said that your salary is $20,000. Of course, what happens is often different. Most, but not all tax is collected at source, which means you don't see the money. But this is still (even in the most socialist of western states) a practice done to help the tax collection process, not an official statement that the money isn't yours. At any rate, in a system that involves state ownership or control of the means of production, property still exists. The government merely has the right to redefine ownership, transferring it from you to them at their pleasure. >Anyway, that's not the only thing that's bogus about Brad's statements above. >Basically, Brad is a utopian Libertarian. Not at all. Perhaps this is your confusion. Not surprising, because we are all guilty here of shifting in our discussion between ideology and implementation without warning. Just because I enjoy discussion of ideology doesn't mean it is how I live my life. The libertarian ideology (and don't capitalize it -- to me, the difference is as much as the difference between conservative and Conservative) as most people understand it is almost as utopian as socialist ideology. My own concept, which I call libertarian because that's the nearest thing to it, is too involved, and not well enough written down yet to be discussed on the net. >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. True in just about nobody's system, actually. You make the mistake that libertarian philosophy is "hermitism instead of cooperation." It is, in fact, "cooperation instead of coercion." If you won't sell your farm so they can build a bypass around it, there are lots of non-violent ways to get you to agree. These include things ranging from paying you a large price to the total exclusion of you from commercial society. > >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? You confuse anarchism with libertariansm. Libertarian philosophy identifies the primary purpose of a country as the common defence. You do not get a private army -- it's part of the mutual agreement of those who formed the country. The same applies to the laws protecting yourself and property from violence. > > More rigor, Chris. Less bogosity. If you think that pirate culture of the 17th century has much to do with either libertarian ideology or implementation, you are wasting your breath. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473