Socialism is against justice
Jetgraphics
Socialists (& Communists) are opposed to private property, ergo, they are
interested in stealing other people's private property.
Abolishing private property of those who have private property is not
'higher' morality - it's theft.
Since land and tools are the foundation of the production of that which
supports life, taking private land and tools from the private people is an
attack on their right to life. In a word, Socialists are organized
predators.
Predators survive at the expense of another's survival. Predatory behavior
harms innocent people.
Harmless productive behavior in support of one's life is moral. But to a
predator, anyone who defends their right to life from attack by a predator,
is an enemy - of predators.
Socialists call the owners of private property: "thieves"! Socialists call
capitalists: "the enemy". Socialists denounce the owner who rents his
private property, for a fee. It doesn't matter what that private property
is, labor, apartment, or transportation. The Socialist feels that any
private profit is criminal when HE can't steal it.
A farmer who owns his own farm is a capitalist. A farmer who rents it from
another is a tenant.
Why do socialists think it's moral to take away the farm from a capitalist
farmer? Why do socialists think it's moral for the Socialist state to rent
it to a tenant?
It is an axiom that one needs exclusive occupation of a volume to survive.
And the fruits of the land and labor support life. Creating useful surplus
goods and services, and trading them, is what prosperity is all about. Those
who would take the land, the housing, and the fruits of another's labor are
thieves, and proscribed as evil doers.
All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy and policy
requires consent.
Socialists hate law that protects the property rights of the people. By
denying private property rights, they deny law. In place of law, Socialists
want socialist policy to justify taking the property of another.
Socialists who seek to abolish private property do not wish to do productive
labor themselves. They aren't seeking to produce more useful goods and
services, nor trade. They are behaviorial parasites on the body politic.
They want to rule the productive people for their own benefit. Socialists
are predators who want the productive to be grateful, and reward the
Socialists for ruling them with such 'great wisdom'.
If Socialists were altruists, seeking to serve mankind for no reward, there
are plenty of charitable organizations waiting for their hard work. But
Socialists want to be handsomely paid for 'their work'. They want a cut of
the booty stolen from the productive masses under their control.
True Social Justice is the defense against Socialism in all its forms.
Of course, all predators, when caught, will disavow their predatory nature.
But it's foolish to tolerate a predator. It's not merciful to their next
victim.
Best laugh: "Socialist Equality Party."
G*rd*n
| Social justice? Don't make me laugh...
|
| Socialists (& Communists) are opposed to private property, ergo, they are
| interested in stealing other people's private property.
|
| Abolishing private property of those who have private property is not
| 'higher' morality - it's theft.
|
| Since land and tools are the foundation of the production of that which
| supports life, taking private land and tools from the private people is an
Well, considering that there are a lot of people who
don't possess land and tools, what are you recommending?
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/17/02 <-adv't
Constantinople
> "Jetgraphics" <jetgraphics@no_spam_me.com>:
>| Social justice? Don't make me laugh...
>|
>| Socialists (& Communists) are opposed to private property, ergo, they
>| are interested in stealing other people's private property.
>|
>| Abolishing private property of those who have private property is not
>| 'higher' morality - it's theft.
>|
>| Since land and tools are the foundation of the production of that
>| which supports life, taking private land and tools from the private
>| people is an attack on their right to life. ...
>
> Well, considering that there are a lot of people who
> don't possess land and tools,
In fact everyone is born owning nothing.
> what are you recommending?
Peaceful acquisition, by gift or trade. Not by theft or robbery.
Remote
<constan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote in news:aigju3$s0j$1...@panix2.panix.com:
>
> > "Jetgraphics" <jetgraphics@no_spam_me.com>:
> >| Social justice? Don't make me laugh...
> >|
> >| Socialists (& Communists) are opposed to private property, ergo, they
> >| are interested in stealing other people's private property.
> >|
> >| Abolishing private property of those who have private property is not
> >| 'higher' morality - it's theft.
> >|
> >| Since land and tools are the foundation of the production of that
> >| which supports life, taking private land and tools from the private
> >| people is an attack on their right to life. ...
> >
> > Well, considering that there are a lot of people who
> > don't possess land and tools,
>
> In fact everyone is born owning nothing.
not me; i owned toys before i was even born. had savings bonds in my name too. "in
fact." i thought this was a post from some punk kid; then i looked up and it's by a
veteran poster. you sure are a dumb ass.
> > what are you recommending?
>
> Peaceful acquisition, by gift or trade. Not by theft or robbery.
yeah everybody get busy trading their nothings. you could get very very rich. take bill
gates for example. oh wait the windows virus is much worse than nothing
socialism was a reaction to the injustice (the theft and robbery) of capitalism
really hope this helps, but if nothing has up to now, i doubt it will
r
kamerynn
<snip>
> Socialists (& Communists) are opposed to private property, ergo, they are
> interested in stealing other people's private property.
Kam:
Which socialists are opposed to private property, and
why? There are socialists in this very NG who are not opposed to
private property - ask Ron Allen, for example. Most socialists that
I've argued with are not opposed to private property. In fact, I've
never read a socialist that adopts an anti-property stance. If you'd
be so kind as to provide me with a quote or two - so that I had
some proof that such idiots exist - I would be grateful.
> Socialists call the owners of private property: "thieves"! Socialists call
> capitalists: "the enemy". Socialists denounce the owner who rents his
> private property, for a fee. It doesn't matter what that private property
> is, labor, apartment, or transportation. The Socialist feels that any
> private profit is criminal when HE can't steal it.
Kam:
I thought that socialists believed that private property is
illegitimate if it was not earned though labour. Marx, for
example, believed that *property was justified* by labour, just
as Locke did. In order to argue against neo-marxists and
other socialists, we must pay strict attention to their actual
arguments. Can you quote a socialist explicitly espousing
the belief that private property is criminal if he can't steal it?
Do you honestly think that *real philosophers* (let's get out
of the NG mentality for a moment, and back to the literature)
would ever defend the belief that another's property is only
legitimate if he can steal it?? Get real, man. There *are*
arguments to be had against socialism, but the one you've
given is simply not one of them, as far as I can tell. If I'm
wrong about this, please quote some literature that explicitly
defends such a silly idea as "legitimate only if stealable."
> Why do socialists think it's moral to take away the farm from a capitalist
> farmer?
Kam:
Actually, most socialists I encounter have a very different
problem. They believe that the farmer must consent to giving
up his land, which means that the farmer must be given
compensation. In order for compensation to be what it is, the
farmer must be given a deal that he would freely agree to. Where
does all this compensation money come from?
As for the socialists that believe in stealing the means of
production (e.g. land) in the name of collective ownership -
who cares about their position, anyway? Let's get real for
a moment once again; no sane mass of people will ever vote
such a depraved theif/lunatic into office. Bush ain't great, but
really - a communist that wants to *steal* everyone's private
property?? In office?? It'll never happen, so let's not worry
about it. Instead, let's worry about the communists/socialists
that have less goofy positions - and let's not attribute such a
goofy position to such socialists/communists. Because, if we
did, we would fail to argue against their socialism/communism.
Of course, this assumes that we want to argue against
their position. Suppose that someone comes up with a *new*
social/political theory. We should assess each new theory
based on its own merits and demerits, non? What if the new
theory that someone came up with was called a new version
of socialism? Would we then closed-mindedly discard it as
though it we had already analyzed it? NO!! We should still
analyze it with an open mind. If it fails for the same reasons
that other versions of socialism fail, so be it. If it espouses
silly positions - like "thievery is wrong for everyone except me" -
then it wouldn't even be published to begin with.
> Why do socialists think it's moral for the Socialist state to rent
> it to a tenant?
Kam:
I can't think of such a socialist offhand - but I think that
such socialists would equate the state with the people, since
they likely believe that private ownership *of the means of
production* is wrong. They likely believe that such rent is
only used by the collective anyway - for paving roads, etc.
> It is an axiom that one needs exclusive occupation of a volume to survive.
Kam:
I don't understand what an "exclusive occupation of a volume" is.
Could you (or anyone else, for that matter) please tell me?
> And the fruits of the land and labor support life. Creating useful surplus
> goods and services, and trading them, is what prosperity is all about.
Kam:
Aye, it is. If farmers only made enough to satisfy their own
needs, there would be no mass production of food goods. Everyone
would have to forage/hunt/grow for themselves. Inefficient, that.
> Socialists hate law that protects the property rights of the people.
Kam:
Again, I ask: where are you getting this from? To which
literature do you refer? Or, are you referring to Stalin's Russia?
In any case, you cannot be talking about ALL socialists.
Most socialists (that is, ones that actually has careers as
philosophers and economists - you know, the ones that
publish books) don't hate the law that protects property
rights.
> By
> denying private property rights, they deny law. In place of law, Socialists
> want socialist policy to justify taking the property of another.
Kam:
Marx is a socialist/communist, right? He believes that labour
produces value - and that the capitalist is stealing a portion of labour's
product. Marx believes that **private property is justified** by labour.
So, it isn't proper to say that "socialists deny private property rights" when
there are socialists who do not do so. You should, instead, state, "socialist
X denies property rights." Making a blanket statement about the entire
category "socialism" is bound to convince no one of anything - one must
first recognize that there are different kinds of socialism. One must then
argue that there are essential features of socialism, and one must do this
by referring to the actual literature - by taking many different varieties
of socialism and drawing out a common theme among them postulating
its necessity for all socialism.
Then, one must show that these essential features entail what you assert.
Only then will you convince anyone about anything concerning *all
socialism.*
I hope that you're willing to do this, or quit making assertions about
*all socialism* - after all, you are a participant in a *philosophy*
newsgroup.
Of course, we don't always need references - we only need references
when the beliefs allegedly held by a group are as ridiculous as the ones you
are attributing to *all socialists.* Hasn't anyone ever responded to such
sentiment (of yours) by stating, "that isn't socialism," or, "that isn't the type
of socialism I adhere to." I bet some people have. This is a sign that not
every socialist is quite as insane as you think they are - it's a sign that you'll
have to try even harder to get at the *important* philosophical issues
("important" meaning the ones on which *rational* people are divided - instead
of the issues, like the one in your post, in which one side of the debate is
**clearly and obviously** populated by people who are *completely insane*).
> Socialists who seek to abolish private property do not wish to do productive
> labor themselves. They aren't seeking to produce more useful goods and
> services, nor trade. They are behaviorial parasites on the body politic.
> They want to rule the productive people for their own benefit. Socialists
> are predators who want the productive to be grateful, and reward the
> Socialists for ruling them with such 'great wisdom'.
Kam:
Wait a minute... don't capitalists provide entrepreneurial
ideas and factories for their workers?
If Socialists were altruists, seeking to serve mankind for no reward, there
> are plenty of charitable organizations waiting for their hard work. But
> Socialists want to be handsomely paid for 'their work'.
Kam:
So? We all have the right to withhold our labour until we
are paid the wage we desire (even though such withholding can
result in death by starvation).
> They want a cut of
> the booty stolen from the productive masses under their control.
Kam:
Dictatorial socialists sure do. If you're ever arguing against
a socialist, ask him or her whether or not they believe in dictatorship.
If they say yes, then your above comment applies. I'd be willing
to bet a large sum of money that you *never* find a modern socialist
that defends dictatorship as the proper politic.
> True Social Justice is the defense against Socialism in all its forms.
>
> Of course, all predators, when caught, will disavow their predatory nature.
> But it's foolish to tolerate a predator. It's not merciful to their next
> victim.
Kam:
Absolutely. That's why you should ask about a socialists'
political stance - if they believe in dictatorship, then make sure you
don't tolerate their crap :-)
Ron Allen
> In fact everyone is born owning nothing.
Ron Allen answers:
Are there no birthrights?
G*rd*n wrote:
> What are you recommending?
Constantinople wrote:
> Peaceful acquisition, by gift or trade. Not by theft or robbery.
Ron Allen answers:
This is also the kind of free-sharing exchange that is
recommended by socialists and communists.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"Who talks, spends; who is silent, keeps."
-- Anonymous
Constantinople
@bellsouth.net:
> Constantinople wrote:
>> In fact everyone is born owning nothing.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Are there no birthrights?
I wouldn't say that the baby owns that property, yet. Maybe I should have
said, "aside from gifts, everyone is born owning nothing."
> G*rd*n wrote:
>> What are you recommending?
>
> Constantinople wrote:
>> Peaceful acquisition, by gift or trade. Not by theft or robbery.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> This is also the kind of free-sharing exchange that is
> recommended by socialists and communists.
If that were all they recommended, there would be no problem with
socialism. But they don't leave off at that. They go on to classify some
exchanges as "unfree", and to recommend measures to make them "free" (such
as democratically redistributing wealth).
Woodard R. Springstube
> Constantinople wrote:
>> In fact everyone is born owning nothing.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Are there no birthrights?
>
> G*rd*n wrote:
>> What are you recommending?
>
> Constantinople wrote:
>> Peaceful acquisition, by gift or trade. Not by theft or
>> robbery.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> This is also the kind of free-sharing exchange that is
> recommended by socialists and communists.
>
Ron,
I am a selfish SOB. If I work and earn a salary, then I want
to enjoy the fruits of that salary--not give it away.
Therefore, I don't give money to street bums (though I will
buy them a hamburger or submarine sandwich--but you would be
surprized at how many don't want the food, just cash). I
don't feel obligated to pay to educate children that I didn't
father. I don't feel obligated to help, beyond a $5-20
donation, those who have been caught in disasters unless they
are related to me. Now, how is a socialist system going to
change those attitudes? I'll tell you how: I will be forced
into a brutal "re-education" camp or given a choice: change or
die.
The bottom line of socialism is that people are expected to
care about total strangers as much as they care about their
own wives, children, families, and friends. People don't
operate that way. And, the only way to get people to operate
that way is with a gun to the head or a bayonet to the back.
When I want something, I trade some of my money to a merchant
for what I want. He gets the money that he values more than
unsold inventory and I get the camera, lens, stereo that I
value more than the money that I gave the merchant. It is a
win-win situation. It is the same with employment. When I
accept a job, I give up the free time that I value less in
order to get something that I value more--the salary. My
employer gives up the money that he values less to get
something that he values more--my skills and labor applied to
his behalf. Of course, the fact that I earn by bread and
cheese by teaching, a profession that I love intensely, is a
bonus. I also spent nearly ten years as a blue-collar worker
in a chemical plant--a job that I didn't like--in order to
have a nice place to live and some toys--and the opportunity
to save some money to further my education so that I could get
out of that job. The funny thing is, if I had stayed a blue-
collar worker, then I would likely have more money in the bank
today. The company ended up going public at $19 and selling
for $67 a share eight months later. I know some people who
made out like bandits through the thrift plan. One blue
collar worker retired quite early, but he bought as much stock
as possible before they went public.
Now, here is another point. If I had to make PVC resin
without the capital investment of the shareholders, I would
never have made a single gram. I made the resin and got paid,
or got paid for painting the plant when we were shut down 2 of
every 4 weeks due to low sales regardless of whether or not
the owners of the plant made a ton of money or lost their
shirts. They bore the risks of the capital investment while
their workers where somewhat insulated from those risks--at
least in the short-term. In the long-term, if the owners
hadn't made some money, then the company would have gone
bankrupt. They deserved some profit for taking the risk.
Further, workers could get stock in the company even before it
went public. They had a thrift plan. Worker contributions
could be invested in any number of mutual funds (including the
well-known Magellan Fund and funds that invested in US
Treasury securities for the more risk-averse) while the
company would match worker contributions dollar for dollar, up
to 6% of the base salary, and put the money in company stock.
In essence, the workers also became capitalists on a small
scale. Why, then, did not the workers buy the plant? The
answer is simple: The combined resources of all the workers
were not sufficient to buy the plant. Further, buying the
plant would then have exposed the workers to risks of
bankruptcy that they were unwilling to bear. That is why
capital deserves a reward, along with the workers and the
owners of land resources. But, I don't really expect you to
understand this. You are as committed to socialism as Osama
Bin Laden is to his interpretation of the Koran.
Jetgraphics
news:3D4C0558...@me.com...
> Jetgraphics wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > Socialists (& Communists) are opposed to private property, ergo, they
are
> > interested in stealing other people's private property.
>
> Kam:
> Which socialists are opposed to private property, and
> why?
I think the definition of terms is appropriate at this time.
According to Webster's dictionary:
CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production,
distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for private
profit.
COMMUNISM - the ownership of property, or means of production,
distribution and supply, by the whole of a classless society, with wealth
shared on the principle of to each according to his need', each yielding
fully according to his ability'.
SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective
ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It is
based upon the belief that all, while contributing to the good of the
community, are equally entitled to the care and protection which the
community can provide.
Now I'm no wizard of words, but it would appear that capitalism
recognizes and supports private ownership for private profit.
The Socialist, by definition, wants collective ownership (no private
property rights) and a Communist, wants collective ownership (no private
property rights).
Anyone who claims that Socialism isn't against private property is either
not aware of the definition of the term, or wishes others not to know the
true definition of the term. Either way, the anti-capitalists of socialism
and communism are thieves and scoundrels, devoted to the theft of other
people's private property.
If someone IS for private property rights, and calls himself a Socialist, is
either a liar or a loon. Would you trust a vegetarian cannibal? The terms
are mutually exclusive.
> There are socialists in this very NG who are not opposed to
> private property - ask Ron Allen, for example. Most socialists that
> I've argued with are not opposed to private property. In fact, I've
> never read a socialist that adopts an anti-property stance. If you'd
> be so kind as to provide me with a quote or two - so that I had
> some proof that such idiots exist - I would be grateful.
See above DEFINITIONS of the terminology.
People who call themselves Socialist and don't know what it means, are
uneducated or deceivers.
> > Socialists call the owners of private property: "thieves"! Socialists
call
> > capitalists: "the enemy". Socialists denounce the owner who rents his
> > private property, for a fee. It doesn't matter what that private
property
> > is, labor, apartment, or transportation. The Socialist feels that any
> > private profit is criminal when HE can't steal it.
>
> Kam:
> I thought that socialists believed that private property is
> illegitimate if it was not earned though labour. Marx, for
> example, believed that *property was justified* by labour, just
> as Locke did. In order to argue against neo-marxists and
> other socialists, we must pay strict attention to their actual
> arguments. Can you quote a socialist explicitly espousing
> the belief that private property is criminal if he can't steal it?
> Do you honestly think that *real philosophers* (let's get out
> of the NG mentality for a moment, and back to the literature)
> would ever defend the belief that another's property is only
> legitimate if he can steal it?? Get real, man. There *are*
> arguments to be had against socialism, but the one you've
> given is simply not one of them, as far as I can tell. If I'm
> wrong about this, please quote some literature that explicitly
> defends such a silly idea as "legitimate only if stealable."
I read the Communist Manifesto. It's spelled out - if you're capable of
comprehending written language.
Quotes from the Communist manifesto:
" In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the
single
sentence: Abolition of private property."
If you can't own private property, you can't own yourself, your labor, the
fruits of your labor and that which you exchange the fruits of your labor
for.
Communism / Socialism is another way of saying piracy - the attack upon the
person and the theft of the property of another. The distribution of the
booty is a specialty of this organized piracy.
" We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the
right
of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labor, which
property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity
and independence."
" Hard won, self acquired, self earned property!"
" Do you mean the property of the petty artisan and of the small
peasant, a
form of property that preceded the bourgeois form?"
" There is no need to abolish that, the development of industry has to a
great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily."
" Or do you mean modern bourgeois private property?"
" But does wage labor create any property for the laborer? Not a bit. It
creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage labor, and
which cannot increase except upon the condition of begetting a new supply of
wage labor for fresh exploitation. Property, in it present form, is based on
the antagonism of capital and wage labor."
There you have it - the communists advocate the end of private property. And
even when they dare offer a qualification that they wouldn't really attack
the property of the little guy they whine that the little guy already
doesn't
own it due to the power of the middle class. In other words, when they
abolish YOUR private property, it's for your own good - and it's all the
fault of the 'middle class'.
" In a word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your
property.
Precisely so; that is just what we intend."
They admit they will not rest until they have stolen all your property.
" The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish
countries
and nationality."
So all the people who wish to use the cooperative power represented in a
nation, [a group of people who share a language, common culture, and
institutions], to defend their private property from attack, are declared
fascists, or capitalists, and therefore enemies of the 'left wing' Communist
and Socialist (pirates).
> > Why do socialists think it's moral to take away the farm from a
capitalist
> > farmer?
>
> Kam:
> Actually, most socialists I encounter have a very different
> problem. They believe that the farmer must consent to giving
> up his land, which means that the farmer must be given
> compensation. In order for compensation to be what it is, the
> farmer must be given a deal that he would freely agree to. Where
> does all this compensation money come from?
I see that "consensual policy" rearing its head. But if you wish to bring in
the topic of money, don't forget that usurers (international bankers) run
the money game via control over national banks and national currencies. Even
Yeltsin capitulated to the international money powers when he petitioned to
join the IMF, and borrow the Ruble into existance, thus making it
convertible with the world's currencies.
> As for the socialists that believe in stealing the means of
> production (e.g. land) in the name of collective ownership -
> who cares about their position, anyway? Let's get real for
> a moment once again; no sane mass of people will ever vote
> such a depraved theif/lunatic into office.
Roosevelt lied when he said 'Relief was not charity' and millions believed
him and volunteered for socialism under the Social Security Act of 1935. Yet
in the laws derived from that 'consent', great evil was and is being
accomplished.
The 'Big Lie' is always good strategy. It works for Socialists and
Communists. Re-read the definitions of the terms. If the term is correct,
and you think otherwise, guess who's in error?
> Bush ain't great, but
> really - a communist that wants to *steal* everyone's private
> property??
Oh puh-lease. The ten planks of the Communist Manifesto ARE already enacted
as law in the United States of America, and enforced via the 'State of
Emergency' first declared in 1933 (HJR 192) and re-instituted every two
years by the sitting president.
Roosevelt stole all the private gold coins, and traded worthless repudiated
'notes' for them. Then after 1966, all the silver coins were cleverly
replaced with slugs.
Need I go on?
> In office?? It'll never happen, so let's not worry
> about it.
That's great advice. After they steal from you, don't believe that they did,
and prepare to get robbed again.
Shucks, all they want is our gratitude that they allow us to regrow our skin
after skinning us alive...
> Instead, let's worry about the communists/socialists
> that have less goofy positions - and let's not attribute such a
> goofy position to such socialists/communists. Because, if we
> did, we would fail to argue against their socialism/communism.
The terms are the terms.
The communist manifesto is what it is.
The planks are enacted.
And you want us to believe it's not really happening?
> Of course, this assumes that we want to argue against
> their position. Suppose that someone comes up with a *new*
> social/political theory. We should assess each new theory
> based on its own merits and demerits, non? What if the new
> theory that someone came up with was called a new version
> of socialism? Would we then closed-mindedly discard it as
> though it we had already analyzed it? NO!! We should still
> analyze it with an open mind. If it fails for the same reasons
> that other versions of socialism fail, so be it. If it espouses
> silly positions - like "thievery is wrong for everyone except me" -
> then it wouldn't even be published to begin with.
Every day people persuade themselves that it's moral to rob a thief. But the
law is different. It's evil to keep stolen property even if you didn't
personally steal it.
Analyze all you want, but if you want to KNOW the difference between good
and evil, it's very simple.
It all starts with survival.
One gang believes that survival at the expense of another's survival is
'moral'.
Another gang believes that survival at the expense of another's survival is
not 'moral'.
In nature, the law of the jungle is eat or be eaten, kill or be killed.
That's the law of the predator.
Then there's the higher law of the producer, supporting his right to life by
harmless (to other sentient creatures) labor. He might even aspire to the
self sacrificing view that laying down his life for his brother is the
highest love.
Now, show me how STEALING Private property and thus injuring the owner is
morally superior.
Thieves who practice self sacrifice for the good of another thief are not
absolved of their guilt for thievery.
> > Why do socialists think it's moral for the Socialist state to rent
> > it to a tenant?
>
> Kam:
> I can't think of such a socialist offhand - but I think that
> such socialists would equate the state with the people, since
> they likely believe that private ownership *of the means of
> production* is wrong. They likely believe that such rent is
> only used by the collective anyway - for paving roads, etc.
I guess you don't know what a socialist IS, then.
> > It is an axiom that one needs exclusive occupation of a volume to
survive.
>
> Kam:
> I don't understand what an "exclusive occupation of a volume" is.
> Could you (or anyone else, for that matter) please tell me?
Try to simultaneously occupy the same space with another, and then you'll
have objective understanding.
Another way of putting it: try to raise a garden when someone is standing on
your soil.
Do you GET IT?
EXCLUSIVITY means no one else has the RIGHT to it.
Collective ownership denies the exclusive right to property, since the
collective can always change POLICY and deny the tenant his exclusivity.
> > And the fruits of the land and labor support life. Creating useful
surplus
> > goods and services, and trading them, is what prosperity is all about.
>
> Kam:
> Aye, it is. If farmers only made enough to satisfy their own
> needs, there would be no mass production of food goods. Everyone
> would have to forage/hunt/grow for themselves. Inefficient, that.
Your statement is neither rebuttal nor cogent. Are you raising the argument
that primitive technology is inefficient? How does that relate to the
Socialist / Communist piracy? Or are you trying to relate that the 'wise'
revolutionaries of Communism tried to push town folk back to the land, as in
the Cultural Revolution of China?
In any case, the original statement simply means that prosperity isn't
amassing a pile of money tokens, but in creating and trading usable surplus.
And the more you can do and make, the more prosperity there can be.
> > Socialists hate law that protects the property rights of the people.
>
> Kam:
> Again, I ask: where are you getting this from? To which
> literature do you refer? Or, are you referring to Stalin's Russia?
Show me a socialist who wants collective ownership of property AND supports
the private property rights of the owners. That's mutually exclusive, ergo,
he must OPPOSE the law that stops him from taking private property.
All 'law' is the protection of property rights in life, labor, and land. The
'law' (known as policy) that is based on consent, doesn't defend life, labor
or land.
It's rephrased in the Declaration of Independence, as governments are
institued among men to a) secure rights, and b) govern by consent.
In short, the government makes LAW to protect property rights (a) or with
consent (b) makes policy / rules / regulations to govern.
Jesus also referred to that concept when he said that the Sabbath (policy
law) was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Though part of the ten
commandments, violating the Sabbath was not a violation of property right
law, and therefore based upon CONSENT.
> In any case, you cannot be talking about ALL socialists.
> Most socialists (that is, ones that actually has careers as
> philosophers and economists - you know, the ones that
> publish books) don't hate the law that protects property
> rights.
Well, I guess they have a different understanding of the definition of
Socialism, or they wish their audience to not know their TRUE COLORS.
> > By
> > denying private property rights, they deny law. In place of law,
Socialists
> > want socialist policy to justify taking the property of another.
>
> Kam:
> Marx is a socialist/communist, right? He believes that labour
> produces value - and that the capitalist is stealing a portion of labour's
> product.
But Marx isn't saying that he defends the owner's right to that value of
that property.
If you reread the definitions of terms, it would appear that Marx was
illiterate or wished to redefine terms to support his ideas on piracy, and
division of booty stolen from the productive people.
I think that the so-called evil capitalists that soc/coms preach against are
the CORPORATIONS, which are NOT CAPITALISM.
Consider that corporations engage in usury, limited liability, and have no
one responsible for the injuries inflicted by said corporations. If Marx
railed against CORPORATIONS hiding within the capitalist nations, he would
have made more sense.
But Marx wasn't interested in protecting private property rights, if he
preached about abolishing them. [see above quotes from Communist Manifesto]
Capitalism, by definition, refers ONLY to the private ownership and
enjoyment of the profits derived.
Usury is a scheme to use an exponential equation to hide theft of property,
using the finite supply of money as a mechanism. Corporations claim to be
capitalist, though they use limited liability to escape the duty to 100%
compensate those who they injure. An investor is shielded from the duty to
compensate, and can enjoy gain at the suffering of others. Due to usury
(dividends and interest) corporations are focused upon immediate profit, and
ignore the rights of others they injure in the mad dash for gain. But to
call them 'capitalists' is an insult to capitalism.
There is nothing in the definition of capitalism that gives support to
usury, gambling, or a host of other schemes used to steal property from the
rightful owner.
> Marx believes that **private property is justified** by labour.
And that gives him the right to steal it?
I see! A thief uses 'labour' to gain another's property, therefore it's
JUSTIFIED.
The harder a thief works to steal, the more JUSTIFIED he becomes.
> So, it isn't proper to say that "socialists deny private property rights"
when
> there are socialists who do not do so.
A Socialist who claims he doesn't deny private property rights while
espousing the collective ownership of property is a liar, an idiot or a
scoundrel. Take your pick.
> You should, instead, state, "socialist
> X denies property rights." Making a blanket statement about the entire
> category "socialism" is bound to convince no one of anything - one must
> first recognize that there are different kinds of socialism.
I guess pirates CAN be categoried into different levels of mayhem.
But piracy is piracy.
Predators are predators.
> One must then
> argue that there are essential features of socialism, and one must do this
> by referring to the actual literature - by taking many different varieties
> of socialism and drawing out a common theme among them postulating
> its necessity for all socialism.
I see. You are arguing that though the term 'socialism' means piracy, the
literature of pirates explaining why they aren't pirates should be
sufficient to allay our fears.
That's great. I feel as good as when Roosevelt said, "The only thing we need
to fear, is fear itself!"
That's inspiring - especially after his gang stole the people blind, and
sold the country into servitude to the usurers of international banking.
> Then, one must show that these essential features entail what you assert.
> Only then will you convince anyone about anything concerning *all
> socialism.*
The dictionary definition.
The Communist manifesto.
The laws enacted under Socialism.
'Nuff said.
> I hope that you're willing to do this, or quit making assertions about
> *all socialism* - after all, you are a participant in a *philosophy*
> newsgroup.
I believe I have.
> Of course, we don't always need references - we only need references
> when the beliefs allegedly held by a group are as ridiculous as the ones
you
> are attributing to *all socialists.* Hasn't anyone ever responded to such
> sentiment (of yours) by stating, "that isn't socialism," or, "that isn't
the type
> of socialism I adhere to." I bet some people have. This is a sign that
not
> every socialist is quite as insane as you think they are - it's a sign
that you'll
> have to try even harder to get at the *important* philosophical issues
> ("important" meaning the ones on which *rational* people are divided -
instead
> of the issues, like the one in your post, in which one side of the debate
is
> **clearly and obviously** populated by people who are *completely
insane*).
If you agree that the terms are correct, then we're in agreement on
language.
If you assert that the terms are incorrectly defined, then we need to find
an authority to solve the dispute on language.
> > Socialists who seek to abolish private property do not wish to do
productive
> > labor themselves. They aren't seeking to produce more useful goods and
> > services, nor trade. They are behaviorial parasites on the body politic.
> > They want to rule the productive people for their own benefit.
Socialists
> > are predators who want the productive to be grateful, and reward the
> > Socialists for ruling them with such 'great wisdom'.
>
> Kam:
> Wait a minute... don't capitalists provide entrepreneurial
> ideas and factories for their workers?
How does a capitalist 'provide' a factory?
Conjure it up?
Or build / buy it?
How does a capitalist profits from his 'thinking'?
Sitting on his arse, or by selling the ideas to customers?
> If Socialists were altruists, seeking to serve mankind for no reward,
there
>
> > are plenty of charitable organizations waiting for their hard work. But
> > Socialists want to be handsomely paid for 'their work'.
>
> Kam:
> So? We all have the right to withhold our labour until we
> are paid the wage we desire (even though such withholding can
> result in death by starvation).
Socialist aren't withholding labor. They want SOMEONE else's labor.
> > They want a cut of
> > the booty stolen from the productive masses under their control.
>
> Kam:
> Dictatorial socialists sure do. If you're ever arguing against
> a socialist, ask him or her whether or not they believe in dictatorship.
> If they say yes, then your above comment applies. I'd be willing
> to bet a large sum of money that you *never* find a modern socialist
> that defends dictatorship as the proper politic.
I think you are incorrect. Collective ownership IS theft. And taking a cut
of the fruits of the productive people is exactly what the Socialist are
interested in.
If you can show me a socialist who doesn't believe in collective ownership,
then he's not a socialist, by definition.
> > True Social Justice is the defense against Socialism in all its forms.
> >
> > Of course, all predators, when caught, will disavow their predatory
nature.
> > But it's foolish to tolerate a predator. It's not merciful to their next
> > victim.
>
> Kam:
> Absolutely. That's why you should ask about a socialists'
> political stance - if they believe in dictatorship, then make sure you
> don't tolerate their crap :-)
Are you trying to hide your predatory nature with the smoke screen of
'dictatorship'?
The bottom line is:
Are you a predator or a producer?
Do you wish to prosper by the sweat of another's brow?
Then you're a predator.
Do you wish to prosper by the sweat of your brow?
Then you're a producer.
It's not hard to figure it out.
The common law is based upon justice, reason and common sense.
Justice is giving every man his due.
Reason is that there must be intent to do harm for it to be criminal.
Common sense requires there to be an injured party, whose person or property
was injured.
The Socialist doesn't want to give every man his due, when he want to steal
his private property from him, by hook or crook.
The Socialist, by definition, has the intention of doing this harm.
The Socialist's victim is the injured party, whose property was taken from
him, injuring his right to life.
Reason dictates that Socialists are against justice.
Andrew J. Brehm
> Social justice? Don't make me laugh...
>
> Socialists (& Communists) are opposed to private property, ergo, they are
> interested in stealing other people's private property.
Logical error #1.
To steal implies to decide to steal. To decide to steal implies to
accept that the act is logically possible. To accept that the act "to
steal" is logically possible implies belief in private property. And
belief in private property implies not being opposed to it.
I suggest you come back after you have finalized your thinking.
> Abolishing private property of those who have private property is not
> 'higher' morality - it's theft.
Logical error #2.
Abolishing private property is not "theft" any more than changing any
other law is breaking it.
> Since land and tools are the foundation of the production of that which
> supports life, taking private land and tools from the private people is an
> attack on their right to life. In a word, Socialists are organized
> predators.
Logical error #3.
Only land is the foundation of production. ools only started to exist
after man has made them, but man existed before he made tools (otherwise
man could not have mady tools). Man can only survive when he produces,
thus production existed before tools, thus tools are not needed for
production.
Logical error #4.
If land is the foundation of production, man cannot produce without
land, thus taking land from those who don't use it and giving it to
those who will is neccessary for production. Production is neccessary
for life, thus taking land from people who (claim to) "own" it and
giving it to people who actually need to use it does not attack the
right to life, but supports such a right if it exists. Applying Occam's
Razor we find that any payment for using that land to "owners" is not
required and would have to be accounted for and the demand explained.
> Predators survive at the expense of another's survival. Predatory behavior
> harms innocent people.
Logical error #5.
Land existed before man, thus land cannot be coming from man. It follows
that if land is taken, it is taken not from man but for man. Thus taking
land does not constitute predatory behaviour.
> Harmless productive behavior in support of one's life is moral. But to a
> predator, anyone who defends their right to life from attack by a
> predator, is an enemy - of predators.
Logical error #6.
It is not generally assumed that predators see their pray as "enemies".
And indeed, working from the principle and assumption that Free Will
exists and that man has it, and that those animals we call "predators"
do not, and that Free Will is required to differentiate between good and
evil, between friend and enemy, and to make decisions that go either
way; we can conclude that a predator without Free Will is incapable of
making decisions (lacking the ability to do so), and thus cannot be good
or evil, and thus can have neither friends nor enemies.
> Socialists call the owners of private property: "thieves"! Socialists call
> capitalists: "the enemy". Socialists denounce the owner who rents his
> private property, for a fee. It doesn't matter what that private property
> is, labor, apartment, or transportation. The Socialist feels that any
> private profit is criminal when HE can't steal it.
Logical error #7.
The fact that "socialism" is not one single block is ignored.
> A farmer who owns his own farm is a capitalist. A farmer who rents it from
> another is a tenant. Why do socialists think it's moral to take away the
> farm from a capitalist farmer? Why do socialists think it's moral for the
> Socialist state to rent it to a tenant?
Logical error #8.
It is assumed that socialists would take away land from a farmer, while
the goal of socialism is equality, which means that under socialism the
farmer in this example would keep as much and as good land as the others
are given for their production and needs.
> It is an axiom that one needs exclusive occupation of a volume to survive.
> And the fruits of the land and labor support life. Creating useful surplus
> goods and services, and trading them, is what prosperity is all about.
> Those who would take the land, the housing, and the fruits of another's
> labor are thieves, and proscribed as evil doers.
Logical error #9.
The need for exclusive occupation is not an axiom but it follows from
the fact that man needs to produce to survive and that land is needed
for production. Even that is no principle but it derives from the laws
of physics and the axiom that man must, can, or should try to survive.
Logical error #10.
Assuming that it is correct that one needs exclusive occupation of a
volume to survive, and assuming that one has a right to survive, the act
of taking land can be an inevitable result of applying these two rules.
If one has a right to A, and A requires to do B, the right must also
cover the right to do B, otherwise the right cannot guarantee A and is
thus meaningless.
> All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy and
> policy requires consent.
Logical error #11.
There is no reason to single out specific laws and differentiate between
them and others.
> Socialists hate law that protects the property rights of the people. By
> denying private property rights, they deny law. In place of law,
> Socialists want socialist policy to justify taking the property of
> another.
Logical error #12.
Socialists do not hate law that protects the property rights of the
people, socialists support such law. But socialists disagree with
capitalists about what "property rights of the people" means.
Capitalists seem to read that "... of some people", while socialists
want to read that "...of all people".
> Socialists who seek to abolish private property do not wish to do
> productive labor themselves. They aren't seeking to produce more useful
> goods and services, nor trade. They are behaviorial parasites on the body
> politic. They want to rule the productive people for their own benefit.
> Socialists are predators who want the productive to be grateful, and
> reward the Socialists for ruling them with such 'great wisdom'.
Logical error #13.
It is here assumed that socialists do not wish to do productive labour
themselves. But that is neither obvious nor does it follow from the
erroneous text of the essay here quoted.
> If Socialists were altruists, seeking to serve mankind for no reward,
> there are plenty of charitable organizations waiting for their hard work.
> But Socialists want to be handsomely paid for 'their work'. They want a
> cut of the booty stolen from the productive masses under their control.
Logical error #14.
It is here assumed that "socialists" and "produtce masses" are two
distinct sets that do not overlap. But no such fact was derived or
defined.
> True Social Justice is the defense against Socialism in all its forms. Of
> course, all predators, when caught, will disavow their predatory nature.
> But it's foolish to tolerate a predator. It's not merciful to their next
> victim. Best laugh: "Socialist Equality Party."
Congratulations! I hope that was your first essay about the subject.
--
Andrew J. Brehm
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
robert parker
<askifne...@me.com> wrote:
>Jetgraphics wrote:
><snip>
>
>> Socialists (& Communists) are opposed to private property, ergo, they are
>> interested in stealing other people's private property.
>
>Kam:
> Which socialists are opposed to private property, and
>why? There are socialists in this very NG who are not opposed to
>private property - ask Ron Allen, for example. Most socialists that
>I've argued with are not opposed to private property. In fact, I've
>never read a socialist that adopts an anti-property stance. If you'd
>be so kind as to provide me with a quote or two - so that I had
>some proof that such idiots exist - I would be grateful.
>
Ron Allen answers:
I believe that it is theft for the proprietors of
capital to
possess capital property which they did not
create/produce
by their own personal labor. If you privately
possess a
wealth of capital property free from your own
personal labor
contribution, then it is theft to acquire such
property
labor free -- i.e., free from your own labor.
Clearly he supports taking the capital from
those that earned it by the investment of the
fruits of earlier labor, and providing jobs for
those unable to create their own jobs. Because
that's how proprietors, manage to amass wealth. By
providing jobs and pay checks for the people that
are unable to create wealth on their own.
Woodard R. Springstube
news:C7FA9B2C172CB6A0.0EE51169...@lp.air
news.net:
> On Sat, 03 Aug 2002 10:31:21 -0600, kamerynn
> <askifne...@me.com> wrote:
>
>>Jetgraphics wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>> Socialists (& Communists) are opposed to private
>>> property, ergo, they are interested in stealing other
>>> people's private property.
>>
>>Kam:
>> Which socialists are opposed to private property, and
>>why? There are socialists in this very NG who are not
>>opposed to private property - ask Ron Allen, for example.
>>Most socialists that I've argued with are not opposed to
>>private property. In fact, I've never read a socialist
>>that adopts an anti-property stance. If you'd be so kind
>>as to provide me with a quote or two - so that I had some
>>proof that such idiots exist - I would be grateful.
>>
> Ron Allen answers:
> I believe that it is theft for the proprietors of
> capital to
> possess capital property which they did not
> create/produce
> by their own personal labor.
Your standard would force us back to the hunter-gatherer
society that lives by sticking spears in animals. There is a
lot of capital that no one nor no one-hundred people could
create "by their own personal labor." Do you really think
that even 1,000 people could mine the ore, smelt it, clear the
land, build the buildings, install the machinery, and begin
production in a tractor factory?
If you privately
> possess a
> wealth of capital property free from your own
> personal labor
> contribution, then it is theft to acquire such
> property
> labor free -- i.e., free from your own labor.
>
Most owners of capital do acquire it by their own personal
labor. They work for wages, live frugally, invest wisely, and
build their wealth by their own efforts. Did you know that
80% of all millionaires in the US have made their wealth
during their lifetimes?
>
> Clearly he supports taking the capital from
> those that earned it by the investment of the
> fruits of earlier labor, and providing jobs for
> those unable to create their own jobs. Because
> that's how proprietors, manage to amass wealth. By
> providing jobs and pay checks for the people that
> are unable to create wealth on their own.
>
If I want a house, I can't build it myself. I lack the skills
that are necessary. The only way I can get a new house is to
hire some people to build it for me. Now, after I have done
that, is it my house or theirs, since they actually did the
labor to build it? I only hired them for wages.
You just don't seem to believe that anybody can accumulate
capital in our society without exploiting somebody else. By
that definiton, nobody should have any capital except what
they make with their own two hands. The problem is that most
of us are only capable of making a few things. And, what
about people like me, who work in service industies? After
all, education is a service industry. I don't produce any
tangible product. I try to inspire, guide, lecture, and
otherwise teach, but the only thing I produce is some notes,
test questions, and marks on a blackboard. For this, I get
paid a salary. I use the salary to buy stuff I need and,
sometimes, stuff I don't need but just want. What I have in
savings comes from my paycheck, just like most people. Now,
how is it exploitive for me to have that capital in the form
of savings?
Methinks thou dost protest overmuch about the horrible
capitalist systeem and the wonders of socialism. I am just
cynical enough to think that you either fall into the category
that Lenin called "useful idiots"--the utopian socialists--or
you expect to be part of a ruling elite and are doing every
thing you can do to deny and hide the fact. Only you know
which is true.
By the way, socialism is legalized plunder, and our system
with the corporate welfare is another example of the same. It
certainly is not free-market capitalism in any pure form. The
corporate welfare is one socialistic part of our current mixed
economy that contains both capitalistic and socialistic
elements.
Caligula the Great
"Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote in message
news:1fgdho6.t288nw2fhmekN%and...@netneurotic.de...
> Jetgraphics <jetgraphics@no_spam_me.com> wrote:
Andrew J. Brehm
> You think you're smart and logical, but you are neither, dumbshit.
>
Very convincing argument.
I assume you are simply incapable of answering any of my points?
BTW, I do not think I was smart and logical. I don't think I'd have to
be very smart or logical to take apart what I did take apart there.
Caligula the Great
Killfile.
The Dunn Family
ownership of the means of production, and therefore involves the
evisceration of the right to own private property. Socialism is murder.
Jetgraphics wrote:
It's a lot more fun for socialists to spend other peoples' money
than it is for them to spend their own.
Patrick Crosby
of production." That's not the same thing, as advocating "stealing other
people's property" at all because your home and your car are not part of the
"means of production." Big oil refineries, however, are. Who really built those
oil refineries? The businessmen who wouldn't know which way to turn a
screwdriver to tighten or loosen? Yeah, right. (Admittedly, businessmen are good
at bribing politicians to get special favors, that sort of thing). Socialists
say the capitalists who boss the workers around and enjoy the fruits of their
labor are the true thieves. Socialists want workers to justly claim what is
truly theirs.
Jetgraphics
news:Xns9260D3356F8F...@205.197.247.129...
> By the way, socialism is legalized plunder, and our system
> with the corporate welfare is another example of the same. It
> certainly is not free-market capitalism in any pure form. The
> corporate welfare is one socialistic part of our current mixed
> economy that contains both capitalistic and socialistic
> elements.
I agree that socialism = piracy unpunished ("legalized plunder")
I also agree that corporations are a scheme to engage in less than moral
activities of usury, limited liability, and gambling, at the expense and
risk of other people and their property.
Capitalism, the private ownership of land, labor and tools, is not defined
as investing capital, at usury.
Unfortunately, both sides of the partisan issue have missed that little
detail. Investment for dividends and interest IS usury, and proscribed from
dim antiquity.
I am not opposed to cooperation and coordination of individual effort toward
larger projects and enterprises.
I am not opposed to return on investment.
I am not opposed to 'corporate persons', artificial entities, that allow an
enterprise to continue beyond the lifespan of the incorporators.
But I think we have to recognize WHAT the real problems are:
Usury, the fee in money for the use of money, in a finite money token system
is impossible to pay.
The proscription against usurers existed before the mathematical tools
existed to prove WHY usury is a scam to rob people. Basically, the compount
interest equation can make a debt grow, over time, to match and then exceed
the total amount of money tokens in existance - and therefore become
IMPOSSIBLE to pay. The dire consequences of bankruptcy to usurers is the
result of toleration of this abomination. Until the debtor has the POWER to
make money - not just trade for it - can usury be tolerated as a harmless
business practice.
Until people can make the money needed to pay interest, corporations should
be limited to paying dividends denominated in WHAT THEY PRODUCE, independent
of the money token pool. Invest in GM, get dividends denominated in GM cars
and trucks, etc., etc. Trade them with others to meet needs.
'Limited Liability' is another problem - when any enterprise can escape the
consequences of its action, then irresponsible and harmful actions will
result.
The investor who is shielded from the legal consequences of his investment
is part of the problem. When an investor can receive gain, at the expense of
another's suffering, it becomes immoral. The officers and employees of the
corporation structure are also limited in their liability for the harmful
actions of the corporation. Up to this point, governments used rules and
regulations as the means to rein in the harmful tendencies of corporate
structure. But as we can observe, the wolves are guarding the chicken house.
Either corporations have to become 100% liable for their actions, or must be
abolished.
Dividing that liability among the board of directors, officers, employees
and investors will be a political nightmare. But it will be an improvement
over the nightmare we are suffering under corporate short term profit
motivation.
Finally, money needs to be understood. Money is a medium of exchange to
facilitate the trade of usable surplus goods and services. It is an
accounting symbol to evaluate different things in relation to trade. It's an
abstraction, not a thing that's a subset of the set of all available goods
and services. Any INCREASE in the quantity of surplus goods and services
must result in an INCREASE in the money tokens used for trading.
If money doesn't increase proportionally to the increase in quantity, money
becomes scarce, and prices must FALL. Those who control the bulk of the
money tokens will be able to trade for more production, at the lower price,
which doesn't make equitable sense to the producers. Falling prices will
penalize increased production and labor. Trade will be penalized, as holders
of money tokens will wait for prices to fall more. Stable pricing and
equitable trade is most important.
Suggestions:
1. Accept private promissory notes denominated in what the issuer can
produce or do as money on the local level.
2. Allow banks to discount private promissory notes and exchange them for
widely trading national bank notes.
3. Eliminate the need for 'borrowing' money tokens by allowing enterprises
to use their promissory notes as the means to raise investment capital.
4. Institute 100% liability for any enterprise. How that liability is
divided among the enterprise partners is an exercise in politics and law.
But when a corporation engages in murder, all participants are accessories
until proven innocent.
5. Intolerance of predators, who attack the person and property of another,
should be foremost in any philosophy, dogma, or legal system. Evil
flourishes when good men do nothing. And evil is the deliberate attack upon
the person and property of an innocent party. Those who deny the existance
of property rights in person, labor and land seek to destroy the very law
used to adjudicate disputes and oppose evil. For when there are no property
rights, there can be nothing for the law to protect. All that remains is
policy, the dictates of the tyrant king, and the law of the jungle.
Woodard R. Springstube
news:3D4D49D8...@ieee.org:
> No. You got it backwards. Socialists are against "private
> ownership of the means of production." That's not the same
> thing, as advocating "stealing other people's property" at
> all because your home and your car are not part of the
> "means of production." Big oil refineries, however, are.
> Who really built those oil refineries? The businessmen who
> wouldn't know which way to turn a screwdriver to tighten or
> loosen? Yeah, right. (Admittedly, businessmen are good at
> bribing politicians to get special favors, that sort of
> thing). Socialists say the capitalists who boss the workers
> around and enjoy the fruits of their labor are the true
> thieves. Socialists want workers to justly claim what is
> truly theirs.
>
So, the socialists won't take your home or personal property.
They will take the plumber's tools and truck, the carpenter's
tools, the writer's typewriter, since these are all means of
production. Oh yeah, they will also take every share of stock
in your 401K. Instead of losing 10% or 40% of your
retirement, you will lose every bit of it.
Now for some reality. Oil refineries are owned by the
stockholders in the company. Most stock is not owned by some
rich dude in spats and a top hat, like the little cartoon man
in a monopoly set. Most stock is owned by individuals or by
financial intermediaries that many individuals own. Examples
include mutual funds, insurance companies, pension plans,
retirement accounts. Other shareholders include university
endowments, charitable foundations, etc. The largest single
stockholder in the US is not some Republican fat cat smoking a
cigar. The largest sharehold is CalPERS, the California
Public Employees' Retirement System. By the way, many
employees of Fortune 500 companies own stock in their own
company through ESOP's, company thrift plans, and other means.
You are basing your advocacy of socialism on a caricature.
This is not surprizing, since socialist morality allows any
sort of lie to advance the "cause" of a planned economy. What
socialists won't mention is the history of mass murder in the
name of socialism.
Woodard
Woodard R. Springstube
news:_Yb39.47937$Ru5....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net:
> "Woodard R. Springstube" <springst...@Diespammer.net>
> wrote in message
> news:Xns9260D3356F8F...@205.197.247.129...
>> By the way, socialism is legalized plunder, and our system
>> with the corporate welfare is another example of the same.
>> It certainly is not free-market capitalism in any pure
>> form. The corporate welfare is one socialistic part of
>> our current mixed economy that contains both capitalistic
>> and socialistic elements.
>
> I agree that socialism = piracy unpunished ("legalized
> plunder") I also agree that corporations are a scheme to
> engage in less than moral activities of usury, limited
> liability, and gambling, at the expense and risk of other
> people and their property.
>
> Capitalism, the private ownership of land, labor and tools,
> is not defined as investing capital, at usury.
> Unfortunately, both sides of the partisan issue have missed
> that little detail. Investment for dividends and interest
> IS usury, and proscribed from dim antiquity.
Interest is the rent on money loaned. Profit is the return to
owners. Nobody is going to allow you to use their money
without a return, and not everybody wants to be at the risk of
ownership. Simply put, there are four factors of production:
Land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship. Economic rent is
the return to land (remember that economists define rent a
little differently from its ordinary usage, as they do all of
these terms). Wages are the return to labor. Interest is the
return to capital (especially borrowed capital). and profits
are the return to entrepreneurship. One caveat: You have
gotten the Freshman Econ. explanation. The more advanced
explanations get quite a bit more involved, but I didn't think
you wanted to read a 400-page dissertation on the topic and I
don't have time to write it.
>
> I am not opposed to cooperation and coordination of
> individual effort toward larger projects and enterprises.
> I am not opposed to return on investment.
> I am not opposed to 'corporate persons', artificial
> entities, that allow an enterprise to continue beyond the
> lifespan of the incorporators.
>
> But I think we have to recognize WHAT the real problems
> are: Usury, the fee in money for the use of money, in a
> finite money token system is impossible to pay.
So, who the hell is going to loan anybody any money without
getting some interest on it, unless you loan it to your
brother-in-law and you give him a loan to avoid sleeping on
the couch.
> The proscription against usurers existed before the
> mathematical tools existed to prove WHY usury is a scam to
> rob people. Basically, the compount interest equation can
> make a debt grow, over time, to match and then exceed the
> total amount of money tokens in existance - and therefore
> become IMPOSSIBLE to pay. The dire consequences of
> bankruptcy to usurers is the result of toleration of this
> abomination. Until the debtor has the POWER to make money -
> not just trade for it - can usury be tolerated as a
> harmless business practice.
And that proscription was put in place in ancient times,
before, people had any good understanding of how an economy
operates. They also had human sacrifice and gladatorial games
in ancient times. Do you also advocate their return. Just
because something was done or forbidden in ancient times, is
not a reason to assume that it is correct.
>
> Until people can make the money needed to pay interest,
> corporations should be limited to paying dividends
> denominated in WHAT THEY PRODUCE, independent of the money
> token pool. Invest in GM, get dividends denominated in GM
> cars and trucks, etc., etc. Trade them with others to meet
> needs.
>
Seems to me that the transactions costs of that idea would
make it prohibitive. Who has the time to do all of that? You
need to think about this some more.
> 'Limited Liability' is another problem - when any
> enterprise can escape the consequences of its action, then
> irresponsible and harmful actions will result.
Limited liability just means that, if you own stock in GM,
creditors can't come and take your house, your car, your boat,
and your baby's bassinet to pay GM's debts. Without limited
liability, shareholder's personal assets could be seized to
pay corporate debts. For example, in the case of Enron, the
shareholders who have also lost their investment could have
their homes seized and sold to pay claims against the company.
That is a sure-fire way to keep anybody from investing in
anything.
>
> The investor who is shielded from the legal consequences of
> his investment is part of the problem. When an investor can
> receive gain, at the expense of another's suffering, it
> becomes immoral. The officers and employees of the
> corporation structure are also limited in their liability
> for the harmful actions of the corporation. Up to this
> point, governments used rules and regulations as the means
> to rein in the harmful tendencies of corporate structure.
> But as we can observe, the wolves are guarding the chicken
> house.
The key thing is to reduce the agency problem with
corporations. Shareholders are not inside, watching
management actions every day. They don't know what is
happening on a day-to-day basis. That means that managers can
engage in self-serving actions. I think that there are two
things that must be done. First, increase disclosure
requirements. Second, restore the independence of outside
auditors. Specifically, that means two things: Use anti-trust
to break up the big four accounting firms. There needs to be
more competition in the accounting industry. And, forbid
outside auditing firms from selling any other service to the
firms that they audit. By the way, when the auditors refuse
to sign off on an audit, the consequences for the firm are
pretty severe. The first thing that happens is that the firm
is de-listed from the stock exchange. No manager wants that
to happen on his watch. By the way, apart from "golden
parachutes," managers of failed firms take a pretty big hit.
The average term of unemployment for executives of failed
firms is three years, and, when they do find another job, it
is likely to be at a fraction of what they made before. So,
maybe we need to outlaw "golden parachutes" so that managers
face some real consequences when their firms fail.
>
> Either corporations have to become 100% liable for their
> actions, or must be abolished.
> Dividing that liability among the board of directors,
> officers, employees and investors will be a political
> nightmare. But it will be an improvement over the nightmare
> we are suffering under corporate short term profit
> motivation.
>
So, if you own stock in GM, you want creditors to be able to
take your house to satisfy GM's debts. Much of the short-term
profit motivation comes from the use of options as part of
executive pay. specifically, options provide incentive to
take a short-term view of corporate profits in order to
enhance their value. The real irony is that options were made
part of executive compensation in order to reduce the agency
problem but instead merely replaced one agency problem with
another one.
> Finally, money needs to be understood. Money is a medium of
> exchange to facilitate the trade of usable surplus goods
> and services. It is an accounting symbol to evaluate
> different things in relation to trade. It's an abstraction,
> not a thing that's a subset of the set of all available
> goods and services. Any INCREASE in the quantity of surplus
> goods and services must result in an INCREASE in the money
> tokens used for trading. If money doesn't increase
> proportionally to the increase in quantity, money becomes
> scarce, and prices must FALL. Those who control the bulk of
> the money tokens will be able to trade for more production,
> at the lower price, which doesn't make equitable sense to
> the producers. Falling prices will penalize increased
> production and labor. Trade will be penalized, as holders
> of money tokens will wait for prices to fall more. Stable
> pricing and equitable trade is most important.
>
>
> Suggestions:
> 1. Accept private promissory notes denominated in what the
> issuer can produce or do as money on the local level.
Huge transactions costs would likely make this unworkable.
> 2. Allow banks to discount private promissory notes and
> exchange them for widely trading national bank notes.
???
> 3. Eliminate the need for 'borrowing' money tokens by
> allowing enterprises to use their promissory notes as the
> means to raise investment capital.
Investment capital comes in two forms: Debt and equity.
4. Institute 100%
> liability for any enterprise. How that liability is divided
> among the enterprise partners is an exercise in politics
> and law. But when a corporation engages in murder, all
> participants are accessories until proven innocent.
So, some little old lady should lose her house if one of the
firms whose stock she has in her IRA goes broke? That would
put corporate ownership strictly in the hands of those wealthy
enough to take the risk. And, they don't have enough money to
fund all of the equity necessary. Also, what about
stockholders who live abroad? Their location in another legal
jurisdiction would shield them from strict liability. Only
stockholders in the US would be at risk.
> 5. Intolerance of predators, who attack the person and
> property of another, should be foremost in any philosophy,
> dogma, or legal system. Evil flourishes when good men do
> nothing. And evil is the deliberate attack upon the person
> and property of an innocent party. Those who deny the
> existance of property rights in person, labor and land seek
> to destroy the very law used to adjudicate disputes and
> oppose evil. For when there are no property rights, there
> can be nothing for the law to protect. All that remains is
> policy, the dictates of the tyrant king, and the law of the
> jungle.
>
Agreed.
>
>
Andrew J. Brehm
> I won't even bother, since I think all socialists are by definition evil.
Yes, it shows why you think so.
Nothing is more impressive than a man who wants to limit his knowledge
because of his opinion.
> Killfile.
That's "plonk" you ignorant prick.
Ron Allen
> You think you're smart and logical, but you are neither, dumbshit.
Ron Allen answers:
That coming from someone whose chosen label is "Caligula",
and man not renowned for his intelligence and civility.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"The end of reading is not more books but more life."
-- Holbrook Jackson
Ron Allen
> I won't even bother, since I think all socialists are by definition evil.
> Killfile.
Ron Allen answers:
You call yourself "Caligula". Aren't you embracing evil?
<><><><><><><><><><>
"You do what you are, you do a fraction of what you are."
-- Samuel Beckett
Jetgraphics
news:3D4D49D8...@ieee.org...
> No. You got it backwards. Socialists are against "private ownership of the
means
> of production."
Land is a means of production of food. Therefore Socialists are against
private ownership of land.
If a farmer (or anyone, for that matter) can't own the land he farms (or
works upon), he doesn't own the fruits of his labor, because he needs
PERMISSION of another (and PAY for that permission, too).
If the dirt beneath your feet cannot be owned absolutely, you absolutely
can't be free.
That which you produced CAN'T be yours, because the foundation, the land,
isn't yours to begin with.
That's the subtle truth that Socialists don't want their victims to
acknowledge - that the ultimate goal is enslavement to the 'State', managed
by the Socialists, 'for our own good'.
And you can bet the farm, that these benevolent Socialists mean to rule, and
take a cut of the booty for their efforts.
> That's not the same thing, as advocating "stealing other
> people's property" at all because your home and your car are not part of
the
> "means of production."
If Socialists TAKE AWAY another's private property, under deceit or
coercion, that's THEFT.
No matter how you sugar coat your prose, Socialism is piracy.
No Socialist wants to preserve the property rights of another and
simultaneously advocate collective ownership of another's property.
> Big oil refineries, however, are. Who really built those
> oil refineries? The businessmen who wouldn't know which way to turn a
> screwdriver to tighten or loosen? Yeah, right. (Admittedly, businessmen
are good
> at bribing politicians to get special favors, that sort of thing).
Socialists
> say the capitalists who boss the workers around and enjoy the fruits of
their
> labor are the true thieves. Socialists want workers to justly claim what
is
> truly theirs.
I think you are mistaking the concept of "corporations" and "management" and
presuming that it's capitalism.
A farmer who owns his own farm is enjoying capitalism, the private
ownership and enjoyment of the profits from that property. He is also
"management" when he makes decisions and acts accordingly. If you check on
the definition of dominion and sovereignty, you'll find much the same thing.
But I suspect that you are really angered at the abuses of multinational (or
ultranational) corporations. A corporation (*Which is an abomination, for
other reasons) is NOT capitalism, though the English language has been bent
to associate capital, capitalism, and capitalists. Check out any dictionary,
and you'll see the difference for yourself.
Most corporations are engaged in usury, limited liability, and other less
than moral activities in order to survive and prosper their associated
participants.
An interesting treatise on some of the "other" unpleasant activities of
corporations is at:
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Corporatocracy
Regarding sovereignty (or dominion or absolute ownership of land), it
surprised me to learn that the only nation claiming a 'republican form of
government' (defined where the people are sovereign - not citizens) is the
United States of America.
Though the propaganda ministry repeats the Big Lie that America is a
democracy, the constitution expressly promises a 'republican form of
government'. The legal definition is quite startling when compared to
democracy.
GOVERNMENT (Republican Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty
are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly,
or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are
specially delegated."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695
Note: People exercise sovereign power DIRECTLY.
"DEMOCRACY - That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in
and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly
through a system of representation, as distinguished from monarchy,
aristocracy, or oligarchy."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 432
Note: "Whole body of free citizens" exercise power indirectly, via majority
vote.
Please note which parties have sovereign powers, and how they are wielded.
In a democracy, the minority can have their rights voted away.
In a republican form of government, the people are sovereign, and can't have
their private property rights impaired by government, by democratic mobs,
nor socialist pirates.
DOMINION - Generally accepted definition of "dominion" is perfect control in
right of ownership. The word implies both title and possession and appears
to require a complete retention of control over disposition. -Sovereignty;
as the dominion of the seas or over a territory. - - - Black's Law
Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p.486
SOVEREIGN - "...Having undisputed right to make decisions and act
accordingly".
New Webster's Dictionary And Thesaurus, p. 950.
SOVEREIGN - A person, body or state in which independent and supreme
authority is vested...
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1395.
SOVEREIGNTY - ...By "Sovereignty", in its largest sense is meant supreme,
absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1396.
"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are
entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own
prerogative."
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)
"At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are
truly the sovereigns of the country."
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463
"It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers
granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions,
the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their
respective states."
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt
16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997
"... Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in
the people."
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]
Did you notice that these court cites never say CITIZENS are sovereign?
"CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their
associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the
dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the
protection of their individual as well as collective rights. " - - -
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p.244
"SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his
laws. ...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as
citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to
obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying
a republican form of government."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425
"... the term `citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term
"subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the
change in government."
- State v. Manuel, 122 N.C. 122;
- State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 122;
14 Corpus Juris Secundum Sec. 4
A citizen is one who SUBMITS to government as a subject.
A citizen CANNOT be a sovereign and a subject.
"Government is not Sovereignty. Government is the machinery or expedient
for expressing the will of the sovereign power." City of Bisbee v. Cochise
County, 78 P. 2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1
So why do Americans believe they're all "U.S. citizens" at birth?
Is there some benefit in subjugation to Washington, D.C.?
Re-read the definition of democracy, and note that the 'whole body of free
citizens' wield power indirectly.
Perhaps the Socialist liars in government and law want people to 'submit'
themselves so that they no longer have absolute dominion over their lands,
houses, and chattels.
"PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such
property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the
exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible
nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as
houses, lands, and chattels." - - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed.,
p.1217
Contrast that with:
"REAL ESTATE .... is synonymous with real property"
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., From p.1263
"REAL PROPERTY ... A general term for lands, tenements, heriditaments; which
on the death of the owner intestate, passes to his heir." Black's Law
dictionary, sixth ed., p.1218
"ESTATE - The degree, quantity, nature and extent of interest which a person
has in real and personal property. An estate in lands, tenements, and
hereditaments signifies such interest as the tenant has
therein." - - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.547
INTEREST - ...More particularly it means a right to have the advantage of
accruing from anything ; any right in the nature of property, but less than
title. - - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 812
And you thought all land was 'real estate'!
Private property = lands, houses, and chattels
Real property = lands, tenements, and heriditaments
How owned?
Private property is owned absolutely
Real property is held with an interest (that's less than title!)
A title deed to 'real estate' is not a title to private property.
You'll find that NO Constitutional government in the USA taxes private
property. All statutes explicitly refer to real property / personal
property, and never ever say 'private property'.
Why?
The Declaration of Independence (also known as Statute #1 in the Statutes at
Large of the USA), says governments are instituted among men to secure
rights (like private property rights). Therefore no constitutional
government can impair rights to private property. The 5th amendment adds
that if they do take it, they must give JUST compensation. But there's no
limitation on stealing 'real estate' / real property / personal property
under eminent domain or failure to pay property taxes or for whatever policy
is concocted.
In short, the sovereign American absolutely owns his private property and as
such is protected from being confiscated by government.
The subject U.S. citizen has only an interest (less than title) in real
estate (estate) and is at risk to losing his custody of said property on any
flimsy reason the government concocts.
That's how the Socialist United States government can control the destiny of
the American people - by deception, ignorance, and coercion.
Einheit
> > Constantinople wrote:
> >> In fact everyone is born owning nothing.
> >
> > Ron Allen answers:
> > Are there no birthrights?
>
> I wouldn't say that the baby owns that property, yet. Maybe I should have
> said, "aside from gifts, everyone is born owning nothing."
>
Still way off. What about inheritance? Not to mention the fact that those
born into a wealthy family are more likely to have recieved a better
education and better contacts, etc. It is NOT an even playing field.
--
_______________________________
Wacht auf, Verdammte dieser Erde...
kamerynn
Jetgraphics wrote:
> I think the definition of terms is appropriate at this time.
>
> According to Webster's dictionary:
>
> CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production,
> distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for private
> profit.
>
> COMMUNISM - the ownership of property, or means of production,
> distribution and supply, by the whole of a classless society, with wealth
> shared on the principle of to each according to his need', each yielding
> fully according to his ability'.
>
> SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective
> ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It is
> based upon the belief that all, while contributing to the good of the
> community, are equally entitled to the care and protection which the
> community can provide.
>
> Now I'm no wizard of words, but it would appear that capitalism
> recognizes and supports private ownership for private profit.
> The Socialist, by definition, wants collective ownership (no private
> property rights)
Kam:
Read the definition of socialism that you've given.
"...advocating collective ownership of the MEANS OF
PRODUCTION AND..." The socialist wishes to deny
private property rights for THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION,
but not for, say, baseball cards, computers, and automobiles.
Socialists DO NOT deny all private ownership whatsoever.
You might think that the dictionary constrains our discussion
of socialism, communism, and capitalism as though the dictionary
were the ultimate authority on the meaning of words. If you had
ever heard of free market socialists, you'd realize that *not all*
socialists wish to control the distribution of everything. The
dictionary definition doesn't allow for free market socialists,
but these socialists exist none the less.
> Anyone who claims that Socialism isn't against private property is either
> not aware of the definition of the term,
----flush----
> > There are socialists in this very NG who are not opposed to
> > private property - ask Ron Allen, for example. Most socialists that
> > I've argued with are not opposed to private property. In fact, I've
> > never read a socialist that adopts an anti-property stance. If you'd
> > be so kind as to provide me with a quote or two - so that I had
> > some proof that such idiots exist - I would be grateful.
>
> See above DEFINITIONS of the terminology.
Kam:
I asked for you to refer to some **socialist literature.** If all you've
read is the dictionary, then you certainly are not enough of an expert on
socialism to make assertions that begin with "all socialism is..." You might
make the entirely uninteresting assertion, "according to the dictionary
definition of socialism, all socialism is..."
> > Kam:
> > I thought that socialists believed that private property is
> > illegitimate if it was not earned though labour. Marx, for
> > example, believed that *property was justified* by labour, just
> > as Locke did. In order to argue against neo-marxists and
> > other socialists, we must pay strict attention to their actual
> > arguments. Can you quote a socialist explicitly espousing
> > the belief that private property is criminal if he can't steal it?
> > Do you honestly think that *real philosophers* (let's get out
> > of the NG mentality for a moment, and back to the literature)
> > would ever defend the belief that another's property is only
> > legitimate if he can steal it?? Get real, man. There *are*
> > arguments to be had against socialism, but the one you've
> > given is simply not one of them, as far as I can tell. If I'm
> > wrong about this, please quote some literature that explicitly
> > defends such a silly idea as "legitimate only if stealable."
>
> I read the Communist Manifesto. It's spelled out - if you're capable of
> comprehending written language.
>
> Quotes from the Communist manifesto:
> " In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the
> single
> sentence: Abolition of private property."
Kam:
Try reading the page before this one and the page after
it. Notice that your quote starts off with "In this sense."
"The distinguishing feature of Communism IS NOT [my emphasis]
the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois
property [through the abolition of the bourgeois class]."
The quote you've given appears after the quote I've given, above.
This makes the "in this sense" part of the quote you've given much
clearer.
BTW, for others that are interested in seeing how the idea
that private property is to be abolished is a misrepresentation
of Marx's true beliefs, these quotes come from Page 484
of _The Marx-Engels Reader_, 2nd ed. Edited by Robert
C. Tucker. W.W. Norton and Co., Inc., 1978.
> " But does wage labor create any property for the laborer? Not a bit. It
> creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage labor, and
> which cannot increase except upon the condition of begetting a new supply of
> wage labor for fresh exploitation. Property, in it present form, is based on
> the antagonism of capital and wage labor."
<snip>
Kam:
Notice that the above quote is an assessment of Marx's *capitalist
environment,* not a prescription for communism.
> There you have it - the communists advocate the end of private property.
Kam:
Instead of reading Marx by your lonesome, take a class on
Marxism. I'm not willing to try and separate the truth from the
fiction in your interpretation of Marx. There is simply too much
misunderstanding - professors are paid for enduring such
agonizing effort expenditure.
> > Instead, let's worry about the communists/socialists
> > that have less goofy positions - and let's not attribute such a
> > goofy position to such socialists/communists. Because, if we
> > did, we would fail to argue against their socialism/communism.
>
> The terms are the terms.
> The communist manifesto is what it is.
> The planks are enacted.
> And you want us to believe it's not really happening?
Kam:
No - I was making the theoretical point that *not all socialism
is a denial of any private property whatsoever.* Don't the people
of the U.S. still have private property? You unlucky saps...
> > Of course, this assumes that we want to argue against
> > their position. Suppose that someone comes up with a *new*
> > social/political theory. We should assess each new theory
> > based on its own merits and demerits, non? What if the new
> > theory that someone came up with was called a new version
> > of socialism? Would we then closed-mindedly discard it as
> > though it we had already analyzed it? NO!! We should still
> > analyze it with an open mind. If it fails for the same reasons
> > that other versions of socialism fail, so be it. If it espouses
> > silly positions - like "thievery is wrong for everyone except me" -
> > then it wouldn't even be published to begin with.
>
> Every day people persuade themselves that it's moral to rob a thief. But the
> law is different. It's evil to keep stolen property even if you didn't
> personally steal it.
> Analyze all you want, but if you want to KNOW the difference between good
> and evil, it's very simple.
Kam:
So, you aren't interested in doing philosophy - assessing each
argument to find its merits and demerits. Every new idea tries to
eliminate the problems of old ideas - every socialist admits that
corruption/evil was a problem for early socialist (statist) systems.
We must assess these new ideas in order to find out whether or
not the system avoids evil. I will do so, and you will not. At least I
will know that the system is flawed whereas you will have merely
presumed it.
> It all starts with survival.
> One gang believes that survival at the expense of another's survival is
> 'moral'.
> Another gang believes that survival at the expense of another's survival is
> not 'moral'.
>
> In nature, the law of the jungle is eat or be eaten, kill or be killed.
> That's the law of the predator.
Kam:
A just society is not the one that has completely succumbed to
Social Darwinism. Killing is immoral, and illegal because immoral.
> Then there's the higher law of the producer, supporting his right to life by
> harmless (to other sentient creatures) labor. He might even aspire to the
> self sacrificing view that laying down his life for his brother is the
> highest love.
>
> Now, show me how STEALING Private property and thus injuring the owner is
> morally superior.
Kam:
No. I need not show you such because I have already agreed that
such forms of socialism are silly and not even worthy of discussion.
> > Kam:
> > I can't think of such a socialist offhand - but I think that
> > such socialists would equate the state with the people, since
> > they likely believe that private ownership *of the means of
> > production* is wrong. They likely believe that such rent is
> > only used by the collective anyway - for paving roads, etc.
>
> I guess you don't know what a socialist IS, then.
Kam:
<sigh> It is I who knows what *a* socialist is -
it is you who believes that all socialists have the *exact*
same beliefs. I have news for you - no two people have
the *exact* same beliefs.
> > Kam:
> > I don't understand what an "exclusive occupation of a volume" is.
> > Could you (or anyone else, for that matter) please tell me?
>
> Try to simultaneously occupy the same space with another, and then you'll
> have objective understanding.
> Another way of putting it: try to raise a garden when someone is standing on
> your soil.
> Do you GET IT?
Kam:
Woah, there. I was asking a question - admitting my ignorance
and seeking enlightenment. I didn't deserve THAT. Grow up, will you?
> > > And the fruits of the land and labor support life. Creating useful
> surplus
> > > goods and services, and trading them, is what prosperity is all about.
> >
> > Kam:
> > Aye, it is. If farmers only made enough to satisfy their own
> > needs, there would be no mass production of food goods. Everyone
> > would have to forage/hunt/grow for themselves. Inefficient, that.
>
> Your statement is neither rebuttal nor cogent. Are you raising the argument
> that primitive technology is inefficient? How does that relate to the
> Socialist / Communist piracy? Or are you trying to relate that the 'wise'
> revolutionaries of Communism tried to push town folk back to the land, as in
> the Cultural Revolution of China?
Kam:
"Aye" is a colloquialism that indicates agreement. Must
you always be so defensive and argumentative? You've indicated
to me that you aren't even *thinking* about the words before
you - you simply respond as though response was supposed
to be a knee-jerk reaction instead of slow, reasoned process.
I'll respond to the rest of your post for the sake of completeness;
I'll not continue this discussion with you because you're not even
making an effort to see things outside of your own, incredibly limited
box.
> > > Socialists hate law that protects the property rights of the people.
> >
> > Kam:
> > Again, I ask: where are you getting this from? To which
> > literature do you refer? Or, are you referring to Stalin's Russia?
>
> Show me a socialist who wants collective ownership of property AND supports
> the private property rights of the owners.
Kam:
Ron Allen seems to know a heck of a lot more than I do about
such socialists - perhaps he'll be willing to invest some time in
your education by pulling some literature off the shelf and doing
what you ask. I've already shown that your interpretation of
Marx is off the mark - hopefully someone else wishes to take
up where I left off. I'm not willing to devote such time to this,
since you admittedly aren't willing to analyze new socialist theory.
> > In any case, you cannot be talking about ALL socialists.
> > Most socialists (that is, ones that actually has careers as
> > philosophers and economists - you know, the ones that
> > publish books) don't hate the law that protects property
> > rights.
>
> Well, I guess they have a different understanding of the definition of
> Socialism, or they wish their audience to not know their TRUE COLORS.
Kam:
Right!! It's either one or the other - sometimes, then, socialists
have different understandings of what (the best version of) socialism
is. Each version tries to correct the deficiencies of older versions.
Analyzing new social theory is what a social/political philosopher does.
> > > By
> > > denying private property rights, they deny law. In place of law,
> Socialists
> > > want socialist policy to justify taking the property of another.
> >
> > Kam:
> > Marx is a socialist/communist, right? He believes that labour
> > produces value - and that the capitalist is stealing a portion of labour's
> > product.
>
> But Marx isn't saying that he defends the owner's right to that value of
> that property.
> If you reread the definitions of terms, it would appear that Marx was
> illiterate or wished to redefine terms to support his ideas on piracy, and
> division of booty stolen from the productive people.
Kam:
Since Marx doesn't agree with the dictionary definition, he's
either illiterate or a piracy supporter? Are all people that don't
disagree with the dictionary illiterate or piracy supporters? I
hope you know what "non-sequitor" means.
> I think that the so-called evil capitalists that soc/coms preach against are
> the CORPORATIONS, which are NOT CAPITALISM.
Kam:
Aye (indicating agreement), some laymen that count themselves
as socialists do not have deep, systemic objections to capitalism.
Some socialists believe that they do have systemic objections.
> Consider that corporations engage in usury, limited liability, and have no
> one responsible for the injuries inflicted by said corporations. If Marx
> railed against CORPORATIONS hiding within the capitalist nations, he would
> have made more sense.
Kam:
Some of today's socialists do rally against the power of corporations -
calling for greater government interference. Although such a thing makes
more sense in your mind, government interference in economic matters
is just as controversial as socialism itself since it is usually an inextricable
part of any given socialist theory. I've seen the capitalists of this NG argue
that any imposition of an arbitrary will that affects the free market should
be disallowed - including, for example, environmental laws that fine
pollution, resulting in higher priced products for polluting corporations.
> But Marx wasn't interested in protecting private property rights, if he
> preached about abolishing them. [see above quotes from Communist Manifesto]
Kam:
Marx was interested in protecting the private property rights
of the worker, which he though was being exploited by the
extraction, by a capitalist, of his labour's value with nothing in
return. This, he believed, *is exploitation.* He believed that
it is exploitation because *workers ought to own their products* -
the value produced by a worker is *his.*
> > Marx believes that **private property is justified** by labour.
>
> And that gives him the right to steal it?
Kam:
No - it means that anything one labours for **is one's property**
> I see! A thief uses 'labour' to gain another's property, therefore it's
> JUSTIFIED.
Kam:
No - where are you getting this from? The idea is that whatever
one creates is owned by him/her. If I grow some straw and make
a straw hat out of it, that hat is mine.
> > So, it isn't proper to say that "socialists deny private property rights"
> when
> > there are socialists who do not do so.
>
> A Socialist who claims he doesn't deny private property rights while
> espousing the collective ownership of property is a liar, an idiot or a
> scoundrel. Take your pick.
Kam:
You forgot to add the all important "means of production"
on the end of "collective ownership." Collective ownership
of the means of production IS NOT THE SAME THING AS
collective ownership of everything.
> > You should, instead, state, "socialist
> > X denies property rights." Making a blanket statement about the entire
> > category "socialism" is bound to convince no one of anything - one must
> > first recognize that there are different kinds of socialism.
>
> I guess pirates CAN be categoried into different levels of mayhem.
> But piracy is piracy.
> Predators are predators.
Kam:
Again, you're displaying your unwillingness to analyze the arguments
of different individuals just in case they have something new and insightful
to say. You do not know the nature of the demerits of their ideas -
you have merely presumed that you do. You have presumed that all
socialists are the same. BTW, this is called "prejudice."
> > One must then
> > argue that there are essential features of socialism, and one must do this
> > by referring to the actual literature - by taking many different varieties
> > of socialism and drawing out a common theme among them postulating
> > its necessity for all socialism.
>
> I see. You are arguing that though the term 'socialism' means piracy,
Kam:
The term "socialism" does not mean piracy - you, of all people
should stick to the definition you've given.
That *all* socialism is piracy IS THAT WHICH WE ARE DEBATING,
here. It isn't to be assumed.
> the
> literature of pirates explaining why they aren't pirates should be
> sufficient to allay our fears.
Kam:
Not just prejudice, but very strong prejudice, I see.
"And all those black assholes telling us they are assholes
should allay our beliefs? No! We KNOW they're
assholes, and we aren't willing to hear what they say."
Go on living in your ideal dream world where you
already know everything before even assessing it.
> > Kam:
> > So? We all have the right to withhold our labour until we
> > are paid the wage we desire (even though such withholding can
> > result in death by starvation).
>
> Socialist aren't withholding labor. They want SOMEONE else's labor.
Kam:
Marx's objection to capitalism is precisely what you've written:
"they want someone else's labour." See page 209 of the same book
to see what I mean. Marx wants to ABOLISH theft of another's
labour. Whether or not the extraction of "surplus value" is theft
is another issue.
> If you can show me a socialist who doesn't believe in collective ownership,
Kam:
...OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION...
> then he's not a socialist, by definition.
>
> The bottom line is:
> Are you a predator or a producer?
> Do you wish to prosper by the sweat of another's brow?
Kam:
Yes, I wish to invest in stock and receive dividends.
So what?
> Then you're a predator.
Kam:
Are you saying that capitalists are predators?
Constantinople
news:1%p39.95958$s8.17...@twister.tampabay.rr.com:
>
>> > Constantinople wrote:
>> >> In fact everyone is born owning nothing.
>> >
>> > Ron Allen answers:
>> > Are there no birthrights?
>>
>> I wouldn't say that the baby owns that property, yet. Maybe I should
>> have said, "aside from gifts, everyone is born owning nothing."
>>
>
> Still way off. What about inheritance?
Not owned by a baby; given to him later on. Go ahead, try to buy the
property from the 1 month old baby by addressing him directly.
> Not to mention the fact that
> those born into a wealthy family are more likely to have recieved a
> better education and better contacts, etc. It is NOT an even playing
> field.
Who said it was?
I specifically mentioned gifts. Parents give lots of things to their kids,
like an education. You want to prevent people from giving gifts to their
children, or else you want to force them to give gifts to people that maybe
they don't want to give gifts to. Either way, you're an enemy of freedom.
Woodard R. Springstube
>
>> > Constantinople wrote:
>> >> In fact everyone is born owning nothing.
>> >
>> > Ron Allen answers:
>> > Are there no birthrights?
>>
>> I wouldn't say that the baby owns that property, yet.
>> Maybe I should have said, "aside from gifts, everyone is
>> born owning nothing."
>>
>
> Still way off. What about inheritance? Not to mention the
> fact that those born into a wealthy family are more likely
> to have recieved a better education and better contacts,
> etc. It is NOT an even playing field.
>
I hate to tell you this, but it will never be an even playing
field. Something called genetics guarantees that it will
never be an even playing field unless you genetically engineer
every person to have the athletic ability of Michael Jordan
and the intelligence of Albert Einstein.
People have differing abilities, talents, strengths, and
weaknesses. Many of these are genetically mediated. And,
even if we had perfect equality of opportunity, the
differences in people would guarantee differences in outcomes.
The only way to have even approximately equal outcomes is to
penalize the successful and reward the failures through
various redistribution schemes.
I was not born into a wealthy family. My father had a third
grade education, and my mother had about a tenth grade
education. My father wore overalls first as a farmer and
later running a little country store, and my mother did in-
home child care for our local physician. I have a Ph.D. and
teach college. I make about as much in a week as my dad used
to make in a year; although, the costs of living are much
higher now. Your push for egalitarianism is a bunch of
baloney and an excuse to grab power for yourself and your
little socialist friends, who will then tyrannize the rest of
us "for our own good."
G*rd*n
| > I think the definition of terms is appropriate at this time.
| >
| > According to Webster's dictionary:
| >
| > CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production,
| > distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for private
| > profit.
| >
| > COMMUNISM - the ownership of property, or means of production,
| > distribution and supply, by the whole of a classless society, with wealth
| > shared on the principle of to each according to his need', each yielding
| > fully according to his ability'.
| >
| > SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective
| > ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It is
| > based upon the belief that all, while contributing to the good of the
| > community, are equally entitled to the care and protection which the
| > community can provide.
| >
| > Now I'm no wizard of words, but it would appear that capitalism
| > recognizes and supports private ownership for private profit.
| > The Socialist, by definition, wants collective ownership (no private
kamerynn <askifne...@me.com>:
| Read the definition of socialism that you've given.
| "...advocating collective ownership of the MEANS OF
| PRODUCTION AND..." The socialist wishes to deny
| private property rights for THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION,
| but not for, say, baseball cards, computers, and automobiles.
| Socialists DO NOT deny all private ownership whatsoever.
| You might think that the dictionary constrains our discussion
| of socialism, communism, and capitalism as though the dictionary
| were the ultimate authority on the meaning of words. If you had
| ever heard of free market socialists, you'd realize that *not all*
| socialists wish to control the distribution of everything. The
| dictionary definition doesn't allow for free market socialists,
| but these socialists exist none the less.
| ...
I don't think much of these definitions. The simplest
expression of the socialist idea is "the ownership or
control of the means of production by the workers, or by the
community generally." The term "collective" is too vague;
after all, most capitalist enterprises are collectivities
too. Some socialists may have believed that "all... are
equally entitled to the care and protection which the
community can provide," but not Marx and Lenin -- they
believed that, under socialism, people ought to be rewarded
"according to their work". I think you'd get similar
opinions from other socialists, if you could find any.
Actually, "all the care and protection", etcetera, sounds more
like Social Democracy / Welfare State talk to me; socialism
was about power.
Most, if not all dictionaries, are published by capitalist
enterprises administered by people of the liberal persuasion,
so any politically hot definition is likely to be skewed to
reflect liberal prejudices and dogma, which are, for liberals,
identical to Truth itself. I am surprised we didn't get the
canard about government control of everything this time around.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/17/02 <-adv't
Woodard R. Springstube
news:aimag2$eom$1...@panix2.panix.com:
If you think that the dictionary definitions are biased by the
publishers, then I think that the definitions used by
socialists are designed to be propaganda that hides the
tyrannical aspects of the socialist system. In other words, I
do not believe your definitions, since they bear little
relationship to what the world has experienced when various
fanatics have tried to set up their socialist utopias in
different countries.
By the way, mainstream economists define the systems the same
way as the dictionary.
IMHO, to a socialist, words are nothing but weapons to be used
to set up the system which will then, normally, engage in mass
murder for the "good of society."
robert parker
<ein...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> > Constantinople wrote:
>> >> In fact everyone is born owning nothing.
>> >
>> > Ron Allen answers:
>> > Are there no birthrights?
>>
>> I wouldn't say that the baby owns that property, yet. Maybe I should have
>> said, "aside from gifts, everyone is born owning nothing."
>>
>
>Still way off. What about inheritance? Not to mention the fact that those
>born into a wealthy family are more likely to have recieved a better
>education and better contacts, etc. It is NOT an even playing field.
>
Inheritance is not a guarantee of wealth
intelligence, or success. In fact most truly
wealthy, successful people come from middle class
backgrounds. Those that are born to wealthy
families, are frequently parasites and or
politicians. Note the Kennedy tribe. Check out the
H.L. hunt family. How about those Rockefeller?
Then there`s our boy Dubya.
Jesse Nowells
On Sat, 10 Aug 2002, Constantinople wrote:
> If I consent to read Amy a bedtime story, then I will die. (Simple
> logic: if A, then if B then A.) But I consent to read Amy a bedtime
> story. Conclusion: I regularly consent to arrangements in which I must
> die.
Consenting to read a story has nothing necessarily to do with an
eventuality that will come if you read the story or not. Besides that it
looks like you're trying to affirm the consequent, which is a fallacy.
G*rd*n
| > If I consent to read Amy a bedtime story, then I will die. (Simple
| > logic: if A, then if B then A.) But I consent to read Amy a bedtime
| > story. Conclusion: I regularly consent to arrangements in which I must
| > die.
Jesse Nowells <jnow...@transbay.net>:
| Consenting to read a story has nothing necessarily to do with an
| eventuality that will come if you read the story or not. Besides that it
| looks like you're trying to affirm the consequent, which is a fallacy.
I don't think Constantinople followed the logic. His
response was silly and there's not much to say about it.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 8/5/02 <-adv't
G*rd*n
| >| >That's wonderful, but it doesn't answer the question, since
| >| >there's no guarantee that those who have no land or tools will
| >| >be able to inherit them, get them as gifts, work for them,
| >| >sell themselves into slavery, and so forth, and thus it seems
| >| >the system of private property which Jetgraphics believes
| >| >_protects_ a right to life actually contradicts some people's
| >| >right to life. My conclusion is that the association of
| >| >private property with a right to life is idle talk.
robpar...@airmail.net (robert parker):
| >| All tools and all productive land are the
| >| results of work. Usually done by the owner, or
| >| paid for by the owner. Justify taking the product
| >| of my labor and giving it to some one who has not
| >| done any work. Stop people from keeping the wealth
| >| they create by work, and they stop producing.
| >| Like every body is entitled to a home, sure
| >| right now where are you going to get slaves to
| >| build them all houses?
g...@panix.com(G*rd*n) wrote:
| >Are you disagreeing with what I said, or agreeing with it?
| >I can't make out.
robpar...@airmail.net (robert parker):
| I seldom bother posting a agreement, so If I
| respond to you It`s to express a disagreement.
| Clear enough.
No.
| Furthermore giving tools to a lazy stupid ass
| hole is a waste of money, as is providing homes
| for those too stupid to provide for themselves.
| The reason that government housing projects become
| slums. Buildings don`t become slums until trashy
| people move in.
So what? I wasn't making an argument for Welfare.
Take another look.
g...@panix.com(G*rd*n) wrote:
| >I disagree with one thing you say: "Stop people from keeping
| >the wealth they create by work, and they stop producing."
| >This isn't necessarily the case. The less power someone has,
| >the smaller the proportion of the product of their labor
| >they can keep, the extreme case being a slave. But even so,
| >the slave or the poor person will work for a pittance if the
| >alternative is exposure, hunger, torture or death. But that's
| >off the point here, I think.
robpar...@airmail.net (robert parker):
| Wealth is that amount not necessary to sustain
| life. Of course most people will continue to do as
| much as necessary to continue to live. But will no
| longer produce a excess. Check it out a slave
| economy has never produced even close to what a
| capitalist economy produces. You really think a
| socialist society would produce a Thomas Edison.
You're way off the rails here. I said nothing about
socialism or the efficiency of slave societies.
Constantinople
> Constantinople wrote:
>| > If I consent to read Amy a bedtime story, then I will die. (Simple
>| > logic: if A, then if B then A.) But I consent to read Amy a bedtime
>| > story. Conclusion: I regularly consent to arrangements in which I must
>| > die.
>
> Jesse Nowells <jnow...@transbay.net>:
>| Consenting to read a story has nothing necessarily to do with an
>| eventuality that will come if you read the story or not. Besides that it
>| looks like you're trying to affirm the consequent, which is a fallacy.
>
> I don't think Constantinople followed the logic. His
> response was silly and there's not much to say about it.
Gordon, your response was absurd. I told you what "right to life" means,
and that it is not a blank check for socialism, and you simply ignored the
point and kept on using your interpretation. You did not present any
counter-argument, or even give any evidence that you had read my post.
Constantinople
news:Pine.BSF.4.31.0208100108090.49390-100000@localhost:
>
>
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2002, Constantinople wrote:
>
>> If I consent to read Amy a bedtime story, then I will die. (Simple
>> logic: if A, then if B then A.) But I consent to read Amy a bedtime
>> story. Conclusion: I regularly consent to arrangements in which I must
>> die.
>
> Consenting to read a story has nothing necessarily to do with an
> eventuality that will come if you read the story or not.
Gordon said nothing about a causal connection in the statement I was
addressing. I was responding to Gordon's actual statement, not to something
that Gordon might have said had he had an actual argument.
And of course we choose arrangements that cause our death. People smoke,
and drink, and eat french fries.
> Besides that it
> looks like you're trying to affirm the consequent, which is a fallacy.
>
No, it's not affirming the consequent. Affirming the consequent is "If B
then A. A, therefore B." My logic was, "A. Therefore, if B then A." That is
correct. Before you go quibbling about others' logic, you should be careful
about your own. Do you understand what logical implication is? Apparently
you do not, so I will outline it for you. "If B then A" is true when:
1) B is false and A is false.
2) B is true and A is true.
3) B is false and A is true.
It is only false when:
4) B is true and A is false.
If you look at the above list of four possibilities, it immediately becomes
clear that if A is true, then "if B then A" is also true.
Constantinople
> robert parker wrote:
>| > > Socialism is a refuge for thieves.
>
> Jesse Nowells <jnow...@transbay.net> writes:
>| > Capitalism is arguably a far better vehicle for theft.
>
> Alexander Nekvasil <a850...@unet.univie.ac.at>:
>| Technically it is not theft, but it is fairly evident
>| that capitalism is not property-friendly, as witness the
>| billions of people that lose their livelihoods over time due to
>| capitalist practices.
>
> Capitalism may lead to greater differences of income and net
> worth than socialism (although this is not a foregone
> conclusion). If so, it would probably be the better setting
> for theft,
Socialism (real socialism, not imagined socialism) is not a setting for
theft; socialism is itself theft - a specific kind of theft, theft by the
state, and therefore theft with impunity. Socialism is a refuge (from
punishment) for thieves because it is theft with impunity.
> since stealing would be more meaningful and large
> accumulations of wealth would afford better opportunities.
> However, "refuge" may refer to something like "vacation".
> That is, an overworked thief could visit a socialist polity
> in order to take his mind off his work.
G*rd*n
| >| > If I consent to read Amy a bedtime story, then I will die. (Simple
| >| > logic: if A, then if B then A.) But I consent to read Amy a bedtime
| >| > story. Conclusion: I regularly consent to arrangements in which I must
| >| > die.
Jesse Nowells <jnow...@transbay.net>:
| >| Consenting to read a story has nothing necessarily to do with an
| >| eventuality that will come if you read the story or not. Besides that it
| >| looks like you're trying to affirm the consequent, which is a fallacy.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
| > I don't think Constantinople followed the logic. His
| > response was silly and there's not much to say about it.
Constantinople <constan...@yahoo.com>:
| Gordon, your response was absurd. I told you what "right to life" means,
| and that it is not a blank check for socialism, and you simply ignored the
| point and kept on using your interpretation. You did not present any
| counter-argument, or even give any evidence that you had read my post.
Well, I think I did, so there.
I would think it would be obvious that a right to live as
just the right not to be killed doesn't have much of anything
to do with access to tools and land. One needs tools and
land to make a living, not to defend oneself from killers.
So if there is a right to live, then there must be some kind
of right to tools and land so that one can produce what one
needs to live. But this idea runs directly athwart liberal
notions of property.
It's obvious that no one wants to deal with this contradiction
other than by redefining the terms of the statements so they
refer to something else, so we might as well drop it.
Ron Allen
> In fact everyone is born owning nothing.
Ron Allen wrote:
> Are there no birthrights?
Constantinople wrote:
> I wouldn't say that the baby owns that property, yet. Maybe I should
> have said, "aside from gifts, everyone is born owning nothing."
Einheit wrote:
> Still way off. What about inheritance? Not to mention the fact that
> those born into a wealthy family are more likely to have recieved a
> better education and better contacts, etc. It is NOT an even playing
> field.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> I hate to tell you this, but it will never be an even playing field.
Ron Allen answers:
Such words from a Ph.D., teaching others.
What is the use and worth of knowledge? What is the purpose
and benefit of knowledge? To enrich the person's life, and
to improve a person's chances? What about social life? Can
an educated public live an enriched associated life, and can
an educated people improve its chances at creating a better
life together?
You are a weak and wasted cynic. You are a fault-finding
and a nay-saying pessimist. You have taken the right side,
suited to your hideous defeatism and your distasteful
misanthropy.
There will never be any good or better life together for as
long as we believe that there never will be a good or better
life together. Before we can create a virtuous and worthy
life together, we must first believe that such a common life
together is possible and preferable. Your pessimism is not
wholesome. If there is no moral ability, then there is no
moral ibligation. If I can do better, then I should do
better; if I can be upright, then I ought to be upright.
What you're saying is that there is no moral capacity, no
moral potential, and that serves only to amputate hope for
a better future, to dismiss effort in the present, and to
disclaim the very moral freedom which makes personal
excellence possible, and which makes self government a real
possibility.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> Something called genetics guarantees that it will never be an even
> playing field unless you genetically engineer every person to have
> the athletic ability of Michael Jordan and the intelligence of Albert
> Einstein.
Ron Allen answers:
Socialism is not about genetic engineering, or about social
engineering. Socialists want a level playing field, and
that's about social relationships and about personal power
in political associations. There are the players, and there
is the playing field. Democratic and egalitarian socialism
are all about changing the playing field, and have nothing
whatsoever to do with changing the players. Every socialist
and every communist knows that people are different, and we
believe this is a positive and praiseworthy good. Human
beings have different and unequal abilities, just as human
beings have different and unequal needs. It has always been
a tactic of anti-socialists to misrepresent socialist ideas
as a means of confounding the people and of frustrating any
opportunity for building a better way of life together.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> People have differing abilities, talents, strengths, and weaknesses.
Ron Allen answers:
Yes, this is true; and egalitarian democratic ideas and
ideals do not deny this truth. Those who do not advocate
egalitarian democracy like to impute this nonsense as if it
were a feature of the democratic demand for equality. But
this is merely a distortion of egalitarian philosophy, and
a calculated falsification of democratic politics. We want
a level playing field. We do not want players with equal
abilities, or people with uniform needs. We believe that
people with better than average abilities do not always or
necessarily have more than average needs. We believe that
better than average abilities are rewarded by the freedom
to be fully engaged in activities which allow the free
employment of different personal abilities. We believe
that the more intelligent a person is, the less will such
a person need symbols of merit and tokens of esteem. All
of us need the love of others -- we need the respect and
the appreciation of others. It is because we live in a
competitive environment that we are forced to take what is
offered -- i.e., more income, more wealth. This is not the
real thing. Material wealth is a substitute for the absence
of love. Class is a surrogate for the lack of dignity.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> Many of these are genetically mediated. And, even if we had perfect
> equality of opportunity, the differences in people would guarantee
> differences in outcomes.
Ron Allen answers:
It would if the war of all against all is our fixed fate.
But human beings are free. We can be what we will to be.
We can be greedy or generous, selfish or selfless. We can
be instinctive, or we can be intelligent. We can take more
than we give, or we can give more than we take. We can do
whatever we want to do. Life is not a choice; death is not
a choice. How we live can be a choice; how we die can be
a choice. Every person I meet is a pilgrim I encounter on
my/our journey from birth to death. We happen to share a
moment in space and time. I can respect and regard the
other I meet as my equal, or I can disrespect or disregard
the other as an unequal. I can be fair or unfair; I can be
just or unjust. I am not one or the other, I am both of
these. I am the sum of the choices I have made, and I will
be the sum of the choice I will make. I came from nothing,
and I go to nothing. The other person may have better than
average abilities, or more than average needs; but we are
identical in our being human. There are people with more
abilities than I possess, and there are people with less
abilities than I have; but there is no people who is more
or less human than I am. The same can be said about needs.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> The only way to have even approximately equal outcomes is to penalize
> the successful and reward the failures through various redistribution
> schemes.
Ron Allen answers:
Redistributionism is not socialism. It's not even welfare
statism. Redistribution is myth.
Equal outcomes is not socialism. Equal opportunity and
equal access are what socialism is about. If people have
different needs, and different abilities, there will be
different outcomes. "From each according to ability" does
not deny unequal abilities. "To each according to need"
does not deny unequal needs. Those who hold this communist
formula in contempt often display a misconception both of
its meaning and of its moral.
We all have different abilities, but we all have the same
ability to love others, to respect and regard others, to
show good will in our associations with others. We all
have different needs, but we all have the same need to be
loved by others, to be respected and regarded by others,
to be shown good will in our relationships with others.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> I was not born into a wealthy family. My father had a third grade
> education, and my mother had about a tenth grade education. My father
> wore overalls first as a farmer and later running a little country
> store, and my mother did in-home child care for our local physician.
> I have a Ph.D. and teach college. I make about as much in a week as
> my dad used to make in a year; although, the costs of living are much
> higher now. Your push for egalitarianism is a bunch of baloney and an
> excuse to grab power for yourself and your little socialist friends,
> who will then tyrannize the rest of us "for our own good."
Ron Allen answers:
There are those who believe your parents deserved what they
got, and got what they deserved. The wealthy did more and
worked more than your parents, and so the wealthy earned
more than your parents, or so they will say. What do you
say? Did they deserve their poverty?
I'm sure that I can say/write nothing that will change your
bad opinion both of my motives and of my philosophy.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"Everything is easier than one thinks."
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Ron Allen
> Socialists (& Communists) are opposed to private property, ergo, they
> are interested in stealing other people's private property.
Kam wrote:
> Which socialists are opposed to private property, and why? There are
> socialists in this very NG who are not opposed to private property -
> ask Ron Allen, for example. Most socialists that I've argued with are
> not opposed to private property. In fact, I've never read a socialist
> that adopts an anti-property stance. If you'd be so kind as to provide
> me with a quote or two - so that I had some proof that such idiots exist
> - I would be grateful.
Ron Allen wrote:
> I believe that it is theft for the proprietors of capital to possess
> capital property which they did not create/produce by their own personal
> labor. If you privately possess a wealth of capital property free from
> your own personal labor contribution, then it is theft to acquire such
> property labor free -- i.e., free from your own labor.
robert parker wrote:
> Clearly he supports taking the capital from those that earned it by the
> investment of the fruits of earlier labor, and providing jobs for those
> unable to create their own jobs.
Ron Allen answers:
I support taking back expropriated wealth by peaceful means
and democratic methods. I support the general strike and
general boycott as a peaceful and legal measure by which
the producers can expropriate material land and capital from
the proprietors of land a capital who expropriated such
wealth from the direct producers of wealth. I believe in
eminent domain as the right of a democratic society to take
private property for public utility with a fair and just
compensation to the proprietor. I believe this can be done
without a police state, simply by the producers being united
in the cause of reaching and realizing both political and
economic democracy. The majority does not need a powerful
police state to achieve what it desires, to bring about the
life it demands. The political state is an instrument of
minoritarian rule; it is an agency of élitism.
If a democratic majority were to elect to begin the creation
of a socialist democracy, how would this be stopped, except
by a minority initiating violence in order to preclude such
a movement? A majority does not need violence to get its
way, but a minority does need violence in order to get its
way. More often than not the mere presence of the monopoly-
power state is enough to enforce the will of a minority.
The threat of violence is enough to keep an élitist régime
in power.
What does it mean to say that proprietors and employers
provide jobs? If a free community needs some agricultural
produce, or some industrial product, then all it needs to
do is set aside some farm land and labor, or some factory
building and labor, for the purpose of producing and of
providing the community's expressed need. I believe that
when there is a need, that is where you will find free
people doing the necessary labor in order to supply that
need. If the proprietors of land and capital monopolize
these means of production, so that human beings do not have
freedom of access to the means of production, then it stands
to reason that the monopoly possessions of the proprietors
makes it necessary for the propertyless producers to get
permission from the proprietors to gain access to farm or
factory in order to engage in productive activity. If you
take away private property in the means of production, then
you take away the very context that makes in necessary for
people to get productive jobs from employers who own the
means of production. If some happen to privately possess
all the available means of production, then others will
have to get permission to gain access to the means of
production. The employers provide jobs only because the
proprietors have first taken possession of the means of
production.
robert parker wrote:
> Because that's how proprietors, manage to amass wealth. By providing
> jobs and pay checks for the people that are unable to create wealth
> on their own.
Ron Allen answers:
The proprietors have first taken possession of the means of
production; and after that initial take over, they then
offer jobs to those without means of production. You cannot
talk about offering jobs to landless farm workers without
also talking about the fact that the proprietors of land
first seized the available land, making it necessary for
the excluded to ask for work. If you prevent free entrance
to land for people to produce what they need, then you have
created a need for the excluded to ask permission for entry
onto productive land where they can engage in labor that
produces value. And, of course, the proprietors charge a
rental fee by means of the wage method of extracting surplus
value. Private property in the means of production is an
artificial construct, and so also is the need of these very
proprietarians to provide jobs.
<><><><><><><><>
"No society can surely be flourishing and happy of which the
far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."
-- Adam Smith
Ron Allen
> Abolishing private property is not "theft" any more than changing any
> other law is breaking it.
Ron Allen answers:
Excellent observation, Andrew!
Abolishing private property in the means of production is
not abolishing personal property as the means to happiness.
Private property in the means of production serves only to
prevent the propertyless from free access to the means of
production, and if you prohibit the many from freedom of
entrée to the means of production, then you have property
rights that can only become manifest in the co-existence of
excessive property with extreme poverty. There are no real
property rights as long as there are people caught and
trapped in poverty. No human being deserves poverty. No
able and willing person should be denied access to the
means of production. No person ought to be denied a means
of livelihood. And no person ought to have the power to
deny another person a means of support.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"Money is economical power."
-- Walter Bagehot
Ron Allen
> To steal implies to decide to steal. To decide to steal implies to accept
> that the act is logically possible. To accept that the act "to steal" is
> logically possible implies belief in private property. And belief in
> private property implies not being opposed to it.
Ron Allen answers:
If socialists believe that private property in the means of
livelihood is theft, then there must be some correlated and
corresponding belief in property. There can be no belief
that capitalist property is theft unless there is a related
belief in some form of personal property. Theft is a itself
a cognate of property, and vice versa.
"To each according to need" is clearly an endorsement of
personal property.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"In all things there is a kind of law of cycles."
-- Publius Cornelius Tacitus
Ron Allen
> Only land is the foundation of production. Tools only started to exist
> after man has made them, but man existed before he made tools (otherwise
> man could not have made tools). Man can only survive when he produces,
> thus production existed before tools, thus tools are not needed for
> production.
Ron Allen answers:
Tools assist in production, and are necessary or useful in
order to increase production, in order to increase the
productive input/output of per capita labor.
Land is the material foundation of production, and tools and
equipment are the mechanical facilitators of production. If
farm lands and factory shops are private property, then the
material foundation, and the mechanical facilitators, of
production and livelihood are left out of the public domain
where they are produced and where they are utilized. A
farm is regarded as private property, and a factory is seen
as private property; and yet, these means of production are
employed by people other than the private proprietor, and
so the private nature of the means of production is made
ambiguous ans controversial. The idea of private property
in the means of production is turned into a contradictory
idea by the very fact that capitalism has evolved into a
large-scale agricultural and industrial economy where a
multitude of producers collaborate together in large-scale
productive enterprises. It is this aspect of capitalism
that contradicts the ideology of capitalism. The collective
union of labor in capitalist companies portends the eventual
end of capitalism. The association of unified laborf is
what points to a coming transcendence of the capitalist mode
of production for private profit.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"I am fearful of stumbling capitalism as well as of creeping
socialism."
-- G. Bromley Oxnam
Ron Allen
> If land is the foundation of production, man cannot produce without land,
> thus taking land from those who don't use it and giving it to those who
> will is neccessary for production. Production is neccessary for life,
> thus taking land from people who (claim to) "own" it and giving it to
> people who actually need to use it does not attack the right to life, but
> supports such a right if it exists. Applying Occam's Razor we find that
> any payment for using that land to "owners" is not required and would
> have to be accounted for and the demand explained.
Ron Allen answers:
There is no need to explain capitalist property rights as
long as there exists a capitalist political state that can
enforce private property rights. Police force makes any
force of argument unnecessary. Political force has made
the force of logic a more or less otiose demand.
<><><><><><><><><><><>
"Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to
reap, we should soon want bread."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Ron Allen
> Land existed before man, thus land cannot be coming from man. It follows
> that if land is taken, it is taken not from man but for man. Thus taking
> land does not constitute predatory behaviour.
Ron Allen answers:
Taking back land that was taken is not predatory behavior;
it is an attempt to reverse past predatory behavior and to
prevent future predatory behavior.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"The best part of one's life is the working part, the
creative part. Believe me, I love to succeed. However,
the real spiritual and emotional excitement is in the
doing."
-- Garson Kanin
Ron Allen
> It is not generally assumed that predators see their pray as "enemies".
> And indeed, working from the principle and assumption that Free Will
> exists and that man has it, and that those animals we call "predators"
> do not, and that Free Will is required to differentiate between good
> and evil, between friend and enemy, and to make decisions that go either
> way; we can conclude that a predator without Free Will is incapable of
> making decisions (lacking the ability to do so), and thus cannot be good
> or evil, and thus can have neither friends nor enemies.
Ron Allen answers:
Of course, there is an exception to the rule, in that the
class of possessive and parasitic predators do regard their
productive and exploited prey as enemies as soon as they
dare to begin questioning the status quo.
<><><><><><><><><><><>
"The value of a pound is what the market says it is."
-- Milton Friedman
Ron Allen
> Socialists do not hate law that protects the property rights of the
> people, socialists support such law. But socialists disagree with
> capitalists about what "property rights of the people" means.
> Capitalists seem to read that "... of some people", while socialists
> want to read that "...of all people".
Ron Allen answers:
Socialists and communists believe that is long as there is
excessive property for some co-existing with extreme poverty
for others, then the right to property is restrictive and
exclusive, and the freedom to produce is suppressed, and the
dignity of labor is obstructed.
Socialists and communists believe the right to property is
contradicted by the reality of poverty.
<><><><><><><><><><><>
"Things, as such, become goods as soon as the human mind
recognizes them as means suitable for the promotion of
human purposes."
-- Carl Menger
Ron Allen
> It is assumed that socialists would take away land from a farmer, while
> the goal of socialism is equality, which means that under socialism the
> farmer would keep as much and as good land as the others are given for
> their production and needs.
Ron Allen answers:
Socialists and communists believe in personal property in
land that accords with personal needs, and believe in
community property in land that answers the needs of the
community. I need a home, just as I need a plot of land;
but I do not need a factory or a large expanse of land.
The community needs a factory, and can collectively make
productive use of a large expanse of land for agriculture.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"Human nature cannot be changed, but many other things can
be improved."
-- Anonymous
William C Colley
Once more I am returning to a post by Mr. Brehm to which I have
previously only answered a portion of. I realize it would be most
convenient were I to answer one of his posts with only one of mine,
but it does take more time than I can spend in a single sitting.
So....
and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote in message news:<1fgjj05.m8onho1b4yy9sN%and...@netneurotic.de>...
[big snip here]
> > Where I live the county government keeps records of land deeds and titles
> > that accomplish this. If I wish to occupy land in my county (permanatly
> > that is, not just go for a walk in some woods) I must do so in accordance
> > with these prexisting deeds, otherwise the county law officers will force
> > me to vacate the land once my trespass is brought to their attention. I am
> > in agreement with this state of affairs.
>
> I am not. I'm afraid that system allows for land prices and rents to go
> up and people to profit from the labour of others without their
> permission.
>
Yes, this can happen
> When you own land next to somebody else's, and that somebody else builds
> an apartment building, the value of your land will go up even though you
> have done nothing to create that value.
>
Not necessarily, at least in the case of building an apatment complex.
But your general point remains true. The property value of a plot of
land is indirectly correlated to the property value of the surrounding
land. However, in my county all property is occasionally appraised by
the county tax assessor, and in such a case as you describe the amount
of the property tax would increase along with the increase in property
value. Therefore there would be a socialistic redistribution of the
wealth, even if nothing was done to create that value.
I know there are those that consider any property tax to be unjust,
and perhaps they have a point, but I tend to think of property tax as
protection money paid to my local government so as to enlist their
assistance in helping me protect my property rights.
Of course the local government is a monopoly and they have no
competition for the protection service they provide. Of course the
taxes I pay do not actually go for protection services, rather they
fund such socialist endeavors as public education. Of course I have no
choice to opt out of paying property taxes and deciding to protect my
property myself.
> It's an excellent system for those who want some people to become rich
> at the expense of others. But it's not an excellent system for those who
> want everybody to profit from their own labour.
>
It seems to me that you are implying that you want everybody to profit
EQUALLY from their own labour.
But who are "some people” and who are "others"? That is, in capitalism
there isn't a preselected group of “some people” who become rich, or
"others" who remain poor, rather there is an opporitunity for anyone
to try and become rich, and the risk that someone rich can become
poor. I can't see how there can ever be any perfectly fair system
where everyone has equal access to money (or land, or wealth, or
private property or success or whatever else you deem important),
since everyone has unequal abilities (and unequal luck). But as far as
I can tell a "libertarian" capitalist system, (i.e. laws exist to
punish initiation of fraud/force, not to favor one group of
individuals over others as most law does here in the USA) in which
everyone has an equal opporitunity to at least try and become rich, is
as fair a system as humans can devise.
Not all labor is equal, therefore not all labor will bring the laborer
the same wages, therefore not all will equally profit from their labor
in a free market. But in the USA at least few individuals receive no
profit from their labor (perhaps prisoners don't), so everyone does
profit from their own labor. Again, here in the USA most rich people
(some 70% of millionaires for instance) become rich within their own
lifetime by their own labor. And some rich people loose their wealth.
> > If you are not willing to decide who is or is not using land, then you
> > must have delegated the authority to make this decision to someone else.
> > Who? Do you accept that the government where you live has the power to
> > grant a title of land ownership to an individual?
>
> Yes. But I want that system modified.
>
But you still haven't told me what person or group of people you want
to have the authority to decide issues of land use. That's what it all
gets down to Mr. Brehm. Who decides how much land someone needs? Who
is granted the legal right to initiate violence to enforce such
decisions?
> > As for strawmen, I will state that I do not support those who initiate
> > violence, threats, fraud or deceit, no matter what philosophical system
> > they espouse.
>
> I do.
>
Well here we disagree. Under what circustances would YOU initiate
violence, threats, fraud, or deceit Mr. Brehm? I am increasingly under
the impression that you are a pacifist, so this statement is somewhat
confusing.
> > Plenty of such is no doubt being done under the name of capitalism and it
> > is wrong.
>
> I think some of it is right.
>
Examples?
> I cannot with good conscience live in on the land I currently own if I
> didn't agree (at least to some extent) with the idea that using force to
> claim that land was somehow right.
>
> If I didn't want to support that violence, I could leave this land. But
> in this case my interests outway my ideals.
>
> I have decided to advocate a land value tax instead of walking away.
> Walking away wouldn't make "my" land available to everyone, but it would
> simply be taken and re-inserted into the force system currently used.
>
Why do you wish to accept responsibility for the action of others? You
are only responsible for your own behaviour Mr. Brehm, not anyone
elses. If you peacefully acquired your land through voluntary,
consensual trade, and if there are no living individuals who have a
legitimate right to claim that land, then why do you have a problem
with owing it?
> > > I am advocating the use of less violence than would be used to keep
> > > those without land away from the available land.
> > >
> > > Whenever you ask me about the level of violence I would advocate, the
> > > answer is always "less than a capitalist".
> >
> > How much violence do capitalists use to enforce private property laws
> > where you live Mr. Brehm?
>
> In this case capitalists didn't have to use much violence because the
> absolutists already did everything that was required.
>
> I'm afraid the armies that took this land did use quite a lot of
> violence.
>
Irrelavent, unless you hold yourself (or me, or anyone else)
responsible for the actions of armies hundreds of years ago. I don't
mean to belittle you, but this is absurd by any rational moral
standard.
The entire foundation of the Western legal system, AFAIK, is that
individuals are only responsible for their own actions. Do you
disagree with this premise Mr. Brehm?
> > Where I live the idea of private property is perpetuated without much in
> > the way of overt violence.
>
> That's probably because people have learned that accepting the status
> quo is less bloody than fighting against it.
>
If by the status quo you mean that we all living as the result of the
actions of our ancestors, well, this is true. But none of us should
feel obligated to pay for their sins.
> > As long as you are advocating a peaceful transition of mankind to a level
> > where concepts such as private property no longer have meaning because
> > everyone is enlightened and peaceful and cooperative, then I fully support
> > you.
>
> That is very nice, but I somehow believe that if I and a few more people
> peacefully start not believing in property any more, we would be shot as
> trespassers at some point or another.
>
Shot by me? Only if you broke into my house or possibly my business.
AFAIK, in most if not all states in the USA, it is illegal to shoot a
trespassor on open ground.
Of course if it is hunting season and you trespass in the wrong part
of the woods...
Of course if you are wantonly destroying someone elses work on said
property and choose to attack the rightful owner when they ask you to
cease and desist…
But mere trespass on open ground as grounds for shooting? I strongly
believe that any such shooter in the USA would be arrested and
convicted for murder, and rightly so.
AS for starting the enlightenment process, well start it in your own
home. Let anyone live there for as long as they want rent free. Let us
know how it goes.
> > If you believe that it is morally right to initiate violence to take from
> > the haves and give to the have nots then I oppose you.
>
> I do not even believe that it is right to initiate OR profit from
> violence to create haves and have nots.
>
Haves and have-nots result from inequalities among human ability. They
have always existed, they exist today, and they will always exist in
the future, no matter what economic system is in place. The best hope
for the truly incapable among us is for the overall standard of living
to increase to the point where even the poorest among us live like the
kings of old.
Come to think of it, that is what capitalism has largely done here in
the USA.
I am reminded of a quote attributed to Mother Theresa. She was asked
about her impression of the United States and she said something to
the effect that she was glad there were no poor people there. The
incredulous asker didn’t understand and wanted clarification. Mother
Theresa said that only in the United States was it possible to be fat
and still be considered poor.
> > I myself am not willing to advocate violence to end the socialist aspects
> > of my society, such as income tax, social security tax, and government
> > funded welfare to individuals or groups. I merely try to participate in
> > the democratic process, albeit with limited success.
>
> Very well. Then you are a democratic capitalist. I respect that
> position. I am a democratic Georgist.
>
Democratic only in the sense that I believe everyone should have equal
opporitunity to run for and vote for public office (well, almost
everyone, those who currently don't pay some form income tax in the
USA shouldn't vote IMHO since they are parasites on the rest of us). I
am against pure democratic systems of governments.
> > > > > Production is neccessary for life, thus taking land from people who
> > > > > (claim to) "own" it and giving it to people who actually need to use it
> > > > > does not attack the right to life, but supports such a right if it
> > > > > exists. Applying Occam's Razor we find that any payment for using that
> > > > > land to "owners" is not required and would have to be accounted for and
> > > > > the demand explained.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The explanation is very simple. The owner paid for the land. If they did
> > > > not, then they do not own it.
> > >
> > > And we don't need them owning it. Any such question is quite irrelevant.
> > > We need land to produce, but we do not need landlords to produce.
> >
> > Who is "we" Mr. Brehm? I think you meant "you" don't need them owning it.
> > I lived in rental property for many years, and had numerous landlords,
> > some of whom I had disputes with over how I could use their dwellings. But
> > I have never felt that I did not owe them rent. And I would have not been
> > able to work my job nor complete my education were it not for the
> > landlords willingness to rent to me.
>
> I believe that I owe to pay for what I _want_ others to do for me.
>
> I do not believe that I owe to pay for what _others_ want me to believe.
>
> Build a house and I might rent it.
>
> Claim land as yours and I will ignore the claim.
>
> These cases are different because in the first you are actually offering
> me something I profit from (a house), while in the second you are not
> (the land would exist without your claim too).
>
Well, not many people actually rent dirt here in the USA Mr. Brehm,
although quite a few buy it.
If you deny the common usage of the word land, as given for instance
on dictionary.com, that includes a parcel of real estate and all of
the buildings on it, then I don’t know how to respond.
> > Of course I would have preferred to live without having to pay my way, but
> > that option hasn't been available to me since my late teens.
>
> It's a sad state of affairs.
>
Depends on ones point of view.
> But some people have that option because they more directly profit from
> the violence that created landed property.
>
AFAIK, none of my landlords ever acquired their property through
violent methods.
> We only profit more than most, but some profit more than we.
>
No one ever said life was fair, and it never will be. As long as the
laws to which we are accountable to treat every instance of initiated
violence and fraud equally, that’s as fair as a system can get
> I think there is a difference between an agent who produces and profits
> from that and an agent who owns a land title and profits from that.
In the USA it takes production or labor and the profit thereof to
purchase a land title.
>
> The difference is that production requires no violence, but land titles
> wouldn't exist without violence (mostly in the past).
>
Again this obsession with violence long past. Why is this Mr. Brehm?
It truly makes no sense to me for you to hold yourself responsible for
other peoples actions.
If there are extant claiments to land acquired through past violence
then let them make a case with the local government. Otherwise it is a
dead issue.
> > > > The burden is on you to show how it is morally justifiable to take
> > > > someones property without their voluntary consent.
> > >
> > > Wrong. The burden is on those who claim that something IS their
> > > property, because what I see is "land", but not "owned land".
> >
> > If my county government considers me the owner of my land then that's
> > good enough proof for me.
>
> Again, this is reality. I was talking about theory.
>
Well in my theory we should all be enlightened hippie brothers and
sisters who live in peace and love and harmony with each other without
needing government or law. Unfortunately I don’t see how to apply this
theory to the real world. Nor do I see how to apply your theory that
no one owns property to the real world.
How about we both stick to theories that can have practical
application?
> > > The original author has established that man has a right to survive, and
> > > that for survival man needs land. Thus man has a right to use land.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, but not to a right to automatically own it just because they need
> > it, but rather a right to acquire ownership of it through peaceful free
> > trade.
>
> What is a right if that right requires permission?
>
> If I have a right to survive, why do I need permission to access what I
> need to survive?
>
Who determines what you need to survive? Mayhap a quick visit to the
dictionary again…
From dictionary.com
</begin quote>
sur·vive Pronunciation Key (s r-v v )
v. sur·vived, sur·viv·ing, sur·vives
v. intr.
1. To remain alive or in existence.
2. To carry on despite hardships or trauma; persevere: families that
were surviving in tents after the flood.
3. To remain functional or usable: I dropped the radio, but it
survived.
v. tr.
1. To live longer than; outlive: She survived her husband by five
years.
2. To live, persist, or remain usable through: plants that can survive
frosts; a clock that survived a fall.
3. To cope with (a trauma or setback); persevere after: survived child
abuse.
</end quote>
I assume you mean (1) when you use survive.
Mr. Brehm, is that all that you want for yourself, to merely remain
alive? I want to grow and flourish as part of my survival. In order to
grow and flourish one must take risks. The same is true for humanity
as well as an individual human. If perchance some supernatural force
(for that is what it would take) were to make all humans exactly equal
in material wealth at all times, then I argue that there would never
be any growth or advancement. Everyone would merely survive.
Stagnation.
I suggest that there is more to life than mere survivial. I would like
to advance my station in life. I would like for humanity to advance to
a higher standard of living than it currently has. But in order for
either of these to occure I (we) must take risks. I take the risk of
investing some of my money, obtained by my labor, in order to
potentially make more money than I can through my labor alone. In a
capitalistic society there is the risk that some individuals will fail
to survive if they do not choose to, or (if you ignore reality again
and completely discount the notion of chairity) not have the ability
to provide for themselves.
Capitalism implies a willingness to take risks in order to become
wealthy. Is it completely fair? No. But neither is being alive, since
all that lives is born to die.
> Why do we have a right to survive anyway? Wouldn't it make any
> difference if we didn't have such a right? What would be the difference?
>
I interpret the right to life as meaning being free from having others
try to kill me. I interpret the right to survive as meaning being free
to take whatever action I need to in order to remain alive. Because I
consider myself libertarian, I voluntarilly relinquish the alternative
of initiating force or fraud to achieve my goals, including survival.
Therefore when I say I have the right to survive, I mean that I have
the right to peacefully do whatever I need to remain alive, unless I
am threatened with harm, in which case I have the right to
self-defense. Certainly these are all vague concepts and any number of
hyothetical situations can be proposed to challenge them, but that’s
the gist of my meaning.
> > > This means that anybody who interferes with that right, which is
> > > everybody who keeps land away from those who need it, would have to
> > > justify his actions.
> >
> > What do you mean by "keeping land away from those who need it"? Do you
> > mean to say that there are individuals or groups of people that are
> > prohibited by law from puchasing land? I agree that this would be unjust.
>
> I don't think it would be very unjust.
>
> Whether there is a law that forbids me to buy land or whether land
> prices are too high for me to pay is quite irrelevant.
>
No, if there is a law that forbids you to buy land then nothing you
can do will allow you to buy land. If prices are too high you can
either work harder, work smarter, get luckier, or move to somewhere
where prices are lower. Millions of indviduals here in the USA start
with nothing and manage to acquire their own land/homes. Not a perfect
system, since the USA has massive socialist policies, but nowhere else
is there such an equal opporitunity for advancement.
> The problem is whether I can use land because it is my right or whether
> I can only use land when I get permission.
>
> I don't care whether the person who I have to ask for permission calls
> himself "government" or "landlord". Why would it be relevant?
>
Because in a free market you will always have multiple competing
landlords who, due to a desire for personal profit, will actively and
creatively seek ways to accommodate you. Governments are a monopoly
and, as you have observed elsewhere, have no incentive to make a
profit.
> > > But those who want to live and need land to survive, they do not have to
> > > justify anything, because they are only doing what is their right to do.
> >
> > There is no one dying where I live for lack of land Mr. Brehm. I am aware
> > that in other parts of the world this may be so, but forgive me if I am
> > selfish and do not consider it my responsibility to ensure the survivial
> > of all those less fortunate than I. That is quite beyond my power.
>
> It's one thing to say that one is too selfish to change things, but it
> is quite another to claim that the current situation is ok.
>
The situation is not perfect, and could be better. But only through
more free-market capitalism, not through more socialism. IMHO.
> > So if, for instance, I decide that I need my neighbors yard in order to
> > survive, then I am justified in taking it?
>
> Would that decision be honest? I doubt it.
>
Who decides if it is an honest decision? The same authority that
decides who gets to use the land in the first place?
> > Or if my county government decides that I need my neighbors yard in order
> > to survive, then they can take it for me?
>
> I assume you simply ignore any sentence that I write that has the words
> "land", "value", and "tax" in them?
>
Like when I state I am not completely opposed to property taxes (which
where I live are based on the value of the land)?
> > I consider either situation to be wrong, even though situations analogous
> > to the latter happen quite often under the guise of eminent domain.
>
> Ok.
>
> > > > Again I ask, how much violence would you sanction to "tak(e) land from
> > > > people who (claim to) "own" it...)?
> > >
> > > And the answer is, again, the same. I would only use less violence than
> > > those who want to preserve their claims.
> > >
> > > This ultimately means that if the landlords are willing to kill for
> > > their position, I will not advocate killing the landlords.
> >
> > Very good. I do not advocate that landlords kill their tennants for
> > failing to pay rent either. Although if a tennant doesn't pay rent then,
> > with the participation of the local government law officers that gave the
> > landlord title to his land, I would support the eviction of said
> > tennants. I would not support the landlord acting alone to do so.
>
> And I wouldn't support the eviction of the landlord if the system was
> different.
>
> If the landlord claimed to own ten pieces of land (a "piece" is the land
> one needs to survive in this example), and the system says that
> everybody has a right to survive and thus the right to use one such
> piece, I would _not_ advocate or allow the eviction of the land lord, I
> would only support that nine of "his" ten pieces would be given to nine
> others.
>
You don’t support eviction but you do support theft, even though you
try to rationalize it by pretending your philosophy doesn't include
the concept of theft.
Who decides what a unit of land that one needs to survive is? What if
the landlord wants to do more than survive, he wants to flourish, and
has worked hard to peacefully and legally acquire the land he has?
> In system A (landlord legally owns ten pieces), nine tenants are evicted
> by force.
>
No, the landlord (by definition) makes arrangements with willing
tennants to rent the land (again, ambiguous word use, most understand
that the word is used in the legal sense; “A tract that may be owned,
together with everything growing or constructed on it” and not the
trivial sense “The solid ground of the earth.”).
Otherwise he is not a landlord, but a merely a land owner.
>In system B (everybody has a right to use one piece), one landlord is
> not evicted but only forced to accept that other people have equal
> rights to what the earth provides.
No, you are forcing him to accept that other people have equal right
to his property which he has, presumably, legally and peacefully
acquired. If the presumption is untrue, then we have a different
scenario. And if you think the landlord is responsible for invading
armies hundreds of years ago, then you really need to rethink your
understanding of moral responsibilty. IMHO.
> The differences are obvious:
>
> 1. In system A violence is used against more people than in system B.
>
How? WHO is initiating violence? The landlord who has legally and
peacefully acquired land?
> 2. In system A the violence that is used forces people to live elsewhere
> (assuming this is even possible, if all the land is claimed).
>
In the USA all the land is claimed and yet the population continues to
grow. How is this possible? Because 1) people continually buy and sell
land on the open market and 2) people have the ability to live on land
they do not own if they do so in a peaceful and legal fashion and
3)land is being continually improved so that it can support more
people.
You imply that it is impossible for people to live where all the land
is claimed. This is untrue.
> 3. In system B nobody has to live elsewhere and the only thing that is
> forced is that the earth belongs to everybody, not to one person.
>
Mr. Brehm, I don’t know how to else to say this, but the earth has
never belonged to everybody and, barring humanities global
transcendence to a more enlightened state, it never will. Individuals
desire their own territory, their own privacy, and different
individuals have differing ideas as to how much territory they want.
To deny them the means of acquiring territory is unjust. To allow
everyone an equal opporitunity to try and peacefully acquire it is
just.
> > > > > > Predators survive at the expense of another's survival. Predatory
> > > > > > behavior harms innocent people.
> > > > >
> > > > > Logical error #5.
> > > > >
> > > > > Land existed before man, thus land cannot be coming from man. It follows
> > > > > that if land is taken, it is taken not from man but for man. Thus taking
> > > > > land does not constitute predatory behaviour.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Incorrect sir. Most vertebrates have a territorial instinct that
> > > > predates the evolution of man.
> > >
> > > My point doesn't contradict that notion at all.
> >
> > You said " Thus taking land does not constitute predatory behaviour"
>
> Yes.
>
> > From dictionary.com
> >
> > pre·da·tion Pronunciation Key (pr-dshn) n.
> > 1.The act or practice of plundering or marauding.
> > 2.The capturing of prey as a means of maintaining life.
> >
> > plun·der Pronunciation Key (plndr) v. plun·dered, plun·der·ing,
> > plun·ders v. tr.
> > 1.To rob of goods by force, especially in time of war; pillage:
> > plunder a village.
> > 2.To seize wrongfully or by force; steal: plundered the supplies.
> >
> > ma·raud Pronunciation Key (m-rôd) v. ma·raud·ed, ma·raud·ing,
> > ma·rauds v. intr.
> > To rove and raid in search of plunder.
> >
> > I suppose if you don't consider land to be "goods" that can be stolen,
> > then it isn't suprising that you don't consider the taking of land to
> > be predatory behaviour.
>
> Yes.
>
So you accept plundering and marauding as a currently legitimate means
of acquiring land. Thank you for making that clear Mr. Brehm.
> > > > The desire to own ones own "private property" is obviously derived from
> > > > this instinct.
> > >
> > > My point doesn't contradict that notion either.
> > >
> > > > Until such time as man evolves past the point of desiring territory it is
> > > > also obvious that a legal mechanism must exist for recognizing private
> > > > property rights. Otherwise predatory behaviour will prevail and the strong
> > > > will take territory from the weak.
> > >
> > > No, It is not at all obvious that laws must be based on our instincts. I
> > > believe that human beings have free will. And I believe that all law
> > > should be based on that assumption.
> >
> > Not based on our instincts Mr. Brehm, but rather enacted with the
> > understanding that these instincts exist.
>
> But it is my understand that these instincts exist but can be overridden
> by free will.
>
Perhaps, perhaps not. How do you know that your concept of free will
is just another form of instinct?
Either way man is a moral agent and just laws should be enacted to
ensure that he act, towards his fellow man, in a moral way.
It seems you and I have different morals Mr. Brehm, so it is no wonder
we advocate different laws.
> > > I know that man has instincts, but I don't think nature should define
> > > our laws. I think _we_ should define our laws.
> > >
> > > I feel that I have enough power over myself to act against my instincts,
> > > and I do not wish to lose that power and to submit my will to the "will
> > > of nature" or whatever is called the will of nature.
> >
> > I am not suggesting any such thing. I am suggesting that, if a strong
> > person(s) takes a weaker persons private property, that this act is
> > predatory behaviour. Just law should give the weak person the ability
> > to call upon government power for assistance.
>
> I agree with you here, but when did we even discuss that?
>
Look up a few lines to where I defined predatory behaviour and it’s
relation to land acquisition. Where you (seemed to) accept that
marauding and plundering were legitimate means of currently acquiring
land.
> > > > I suggest that this predatory behaviour is morally repugnant, and that ll
> > > > individuals should have the equal opportunity to peacefully acquire
> > > > property.
> > >
> > > Which ultimately means that everybody must have the same rights to use
> > > land, where such a right excludes the right to keep people away from
> > > land.
> >
> > I am still not understanding your position Mr. Brehm. All land is not
> > equal, nor is all land equally availble to all people. I just don't see
> > how, in the absence of a global transcendence of humanity into a higher
> > enlightend state, that such a scenario is possible.
>
> We can start in one country.
>
This does not at all answer the question, and so I take it that you
really have no answer as to how your idea of “no one owns land” could
ever be implemented.
Engaging in philosophical discussion for it’s own sake is all well and
good Mr. Brehm, but please don’t try to pretend you have any answers
for the real world when in fact you do not.
How about you obtain some land in your country and start with that?
Just post an add in your local newspaper that everyone is welcome to
live on your land with no rent. Get back to us after a month and let
us know the results.
> > It would be wonderful if all of humanity could trust one another to such
> > an extent as to share all the land together, but as long as violent
> > predatory individuals exist it just ain't so.
>
> The law can prevent predatory individuals from interfering.
>
Or it can, as you seem to desire, itself become the predator and
prevent individuals from peacefully acquiring more land than some
arbitrary law maker decides is appropriate.
Who decides how much land and what specific parcel of land we get Mr.
Brehm? If I don't, and you don't, then who? Do we all have to vote
every time somebody wants to move to a new house?
> > > > This is not the same as saying all individuals should have an equal amount
> > > > of private property. That notion is prima facie absurd, since the number
> > > > of individuals is not constant.
> > >
> > > That doesn't make such a claim absurd.
> > >
> > > You have obviously not considered land value taxation, which will solve
> > > that problem.
> > >
> > > I am also slightly offended by your trying to put land and other objects
> > > in the same category as "property". Produced goods and what nature
> > > provides are NOT the same things and should not be treated as the same.
> >
> > If by land value taxes you are refering to property taxes such as I
> > pay to my local government, then I am not totally opposed.
>
> Property taxes are paid for the value of the land plus the value of the
> building on it.
>
> Land value taxes are paid for the value of the land only.
>
Who decides how much tax is collected? Who collects it? Who
redistributes it? Who enforces these decisions?
Do we all vote all the time on every such decision? When the hell
would we do anything else?
> > However it seems to me that land should only be taxed at such time when
> > title is transferred.
>
> But that wouldn't solve the problems.
>
No, but it would prevent individuals who, through peaceful consensual
trade have managed to acquire land but who, through whatever
circumstances no longer have much money, to keep their land. That’s
the reason I (pre)tend to view property taxes as protection money.
Currently people can lose their land if they fail to pay regular
property taxes. This is in my opinion unjust, since the government (or
collection agency) will always outlast individuals and can afford to
wait until the title is transferred to collect the tax.
As long as dead people have no legal right to own land that is. I hear
in Iran though this is not the case.
> > As to my use of the word property, I use it in the common sense of the
> > meaning.
> >
> > From dictionary.com
> > prop·er·ty (pr p r-t ) n. pl. prop·er·ties
> > a. Something owned; a possession.
> > b. A piece of real estate: has a swimming pool on the property.
> > c. Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal
> > title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
> > d. Possessions considered as a group.
> >
> > I don't know what to say if this usage offends you Mr. Brehm.
>
> Ok.
>
That’s it? After you state “ I am also slightly offended by your
trying to put land and other objects in the same category as
"property". Produced goods and what nature provides are NOT the same
things and should not be treated as the same.” you still completely
ignore the fact that YOU use the word property in a way inconsistent
with common usage?
Are you really trying to redefine words so as to support your personal
assumptions? I had thought better of you Mr. Brehm.
> > > > > > Harmless productive behavior in support of one's life is moral.
> > > > > > But to a predator, anyone who defends their right to life from
> > > > > > attack by a predator, is an enemy - of predators.
> > > > >
> > > > > Logical error #6.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is not generally assumed that predators see their pray as "enemies".
> > > >
> > > > That is not what was stated. The view of the predator is irrelevant.
> > > > The view of the defender who "...defends their right to life from
> > > > attack..." is that the predator is an enemy.
> > >
> > > What the original author did say was
> > >
> > > "But to a predator anybody who defends their right to life from attack
> > > by a predator is an enemy."
> > >
> > > So the original author did refer to the view of the predator.
> > >
> >
> > My apologies Mr. Brehm, I did misread the statement. Thank you for
> > correcting my error.
>
> Ok.
>
> > However, I do maintain that the predator is an enemy to those preyed
> > upon.
>
> I think we are only discussing semantics here. So ok.
>
> > > > > And indeed, working from the principle and assumption that Free Will
> > > > > exists and that man has it, and that those animals we call "predators"
> > > > > do not, and that Free Will is required to differentiate between good and
> > > > > evil, between friend and enemy, and to make decisions that go either
> > > > > way; we can conclude that a predator without Free Will is incapable of
> > > > > making decisions (lacking the ability to do so), and thus cannot be good
> > > > > or evil, and thus can have neither friends nor enemies.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The belief in "free will", which I share, is not necessarily restricted to
> > > > Homo sapiens, although we are the only species in which it can be easily
> > > > recognized since we are also the only species which can communicate it.
> > >
> > > I don't quite get you.
> > >
> > > You state that you think that individuals should have equal opprtunity
> > > to peacefully acquire property, yet you do not want them to have what is
> > > physically needed to do exactly that.
> > >
> > > And you state that you believe in free will, yet you want our laws to be
> > > based on something else, and ignore free will when it comes to the laws.
> > >
> >
> > I concede that my belief in "free will" is currently under challenge since
> > recent scientific evidence strongly indicates that what we call "free
> > will" or volition is not real.
>
> The belief in free will is one of the few things I accept without any
> physical evidence.
>
But physical evidence seems to indicate free will, at least as is
commonly understood as the volition or intent behind voluntary
behaviour, is a mental construct generated by our brains AFTER we
initiate voluntary behaviour. Since it comes after, it cannot cause.
> > That is, the region of our brain responsible for generating our sense of
> > volition is not active prior to the initiation of voluntary behaviour.
> > Rather, our intuitive sense of ourselves causing our actions is, in fact a
> > mental construct that is generated in order to provide us with a means of
> > distinguishing our behaviour from others behaviour.
>
> If there is no free will I cannot help but believing in it anyway;
> because I wouldn't be able to change that belief.
>
</begin humorous advice>
Hummm. Trapped by your own assumptions then you are. Unwilling to look
beyond what you think must be in order to discover what is you are.
You must always be willing to question even your most cherished
assumptions if you seek enlightenment.
</end humourous advice>
> > As I mentioned in another thead of ours, this idea is elucidated in a
> > recent book (which I still haven't read) "The Illusion of Conscious
> > Will" by DM Wegner. A brief review with links to related information
> > is here:
> >
> > http://psych.pomona.edu/scr/book_review_IllusionWill.html
>
> Ok.
>
> > Of course the idea that humans are not directly responsible for
> > willing our actions directly challenges much of the moral foundations
> > of our legal systems. Currently I am reading up on compatabilism, an
> > alternative philosophy of human action. Even as I write this I am
> > refering to the following link:
> >
> > http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/clark_22_2.html
> >
> > To quote from the website:
> >
> > "Although not yet widely disseminated in lay culture, this view holds
> > that we are free to the extent our actions flow from our
> > character-based motives and desires, not from coercion or duress. Such
> > freedom is compatible with our being fully caused creatures, in that
> > it is a freedom from external or internal constraints (e.g., from
> > chains and psychoses), not the patently implausible ultimate freedom
> > to choose our selves or actions ex nihilo"
> >
> > and just one more quote:
> >
> > "This view of morality˜the instrumental shaping of behavior˜needs no
> > freely willing, intrinsically deserving agent that could have done
> > otherwise in the exact situation in which a given behavior arose.
> > Moral agents, instead, are simply that rather broad class of persons
> > who can anticipate the rewards and sanctions carried by moral
> > evaluation (e.g., praise, credit, blame, punishment); it makes
> > pragmatic sense to hold moral agents responsible to such standards,
> > since doing so helps modify their behavior. On the other hand, those
> > with serious mental illness or those forced at gunpoint (or similarly
> > threatened) to act contrary to their characters are not held
> > responsible."
> >
> > So it isn't necessary for humans to have "free will" in order for us
> > to be accountable for our actions.
> >
> > Anyway, if you "don't quite get me" it isn't all your fault Mr. Brehm.
> > I don't quite get myself sometimes.
> >
> > But to continue with this enlightening discussion∑
>
> Ok. Thanks for the links.
>
> > > > However, man is also a predator in that we hunt and kill other animals for
> > > > food and tools and territory.
> > >
> > > And why not.
> > >
> > > > I think it is morally wrong for humans to act as predators against other
> > > > humans.
> > >
> > > I agree.
> > >
> > > > Therefore I think it is wrong to take by force from other humans what they
> > > > have rightfullly acquired.
> > >
> > > I agree. But I don't believe that land can be "rightfully acquired",
> > > because any claim of exclusive rights to use land, keeps other people
> > > from using that land, and since we have established that these same
> > > other people have a right to survive and need land to do so, the
> > > before-mentioned claim would be an act against that right.
> > >
> >
> > But not everybody needs to use the same land at the same time.
>
> True enough. That's why I think land value taxation would solve the
> problem of assignment.
>
So does a legal system of land titles and a free market in which to
trade them.
> > Any land rightfully owned will cease to be owned by the owner upon his
> > selling it or upon his death. I am not opposed to taxation on land at the
> > time of title transfer.
>
> I don't see why we should tax land at the time of title transfer.
>
> The value of land goes up and down not only when it is sold, but every
> year.
>
The government will outlast the lifespan of an individual, therefore
it can wait to collect the profit that comes from such increases in
land value. Some individuals may find themselves unable to pay an
annual tribute for the “right” to remain on land they have purchased.
I suggest it is wrong for the government to force them off their land
in such a situation. When title is transferred, back taxes could come
out of the profit from the sale of the land, or at the worst the
government could assume ownership.
> > > > I think that when someone in the USA purchases land from a consensual
> > > > seller in a peaceful transaction that they have rightfully acquired that
> > > > land.
> > >
> > > And I think that what they have rightfully acquired is a title, not the
> > > land.
> > >
> > > I believe the law shares that view.
> >
> > Here is where I begin to understand you. When I say I "own" land I mean
> > that I own a title to that land, granted to me by my local government. I
> > do not claim to own the land in perpetuity. There is little doubt that I
> > will someday either sell land on the open market, or die and leave the
> > land to my heirs as part of my estate. Either way I would think it fair
> > that the tax paid as a result of the title transfer would be the same,
> > even though a buyer on the open market would pay a higher price than would
> > my heirs which inherit it.
>
> But there is no "open market" for land. Land is a natural monopoly,
> because the supply is limited, which is why the price goes up even
> though the quality of the land itself is not getting any better.
>
In another part of this thread you conceeded that the market will
determine the value of the land tax in your system. Do you mean to say
that this market is not an open (free) market, but rather that some
elite group of individuals gets to determine said value?
Not very democratic of you Mr. Brehm.
Who are these elite?
> > I am not suggesting this is how land tax works, but at first thought I
> > could see where this would be fair.
>
> Ok.
>
> > > > It is only when someone wishes to forcefully impose socialism on others
> > > > that violence invariably ensues.
> > >
> > > Yes, but that must also be true for capitalism.
> > >
> > > There is nothing wrong, IMO, in voluntary capitalism practiced among a
> > > willing group of consenting individuals with their own peacefully
> > > acquired property.
> > >
> > > But which rules should we apply for interactions between our groups?
> > >
> > > Let's look at a few example groups.
> > >
> > > Group A is a capitalist group. Their rules for interaction are as
> > > follows:
> > >
> > > A1: A man owns himself. [0]
> > >
> > > A2: A man owns what he produces unless he agreed otherwise.
> > >
> > > A3: Land is owned by the first person to step on it and then by whoever
> > > he agrees to sell it to.
> > >
> >
> > I do not agree that land should be owned by the first person to step on
> > it. I can't speak for the entire world, because I truly do not know, but
> > here in the USA there is essentially no unclaimed land left; all land is
> > already claimed and under the purview of some governing authority even if
> > perhaps it has not been physically occupied. Therefore legitimate transfer
> > of land ownership (or title) requires permission from said government.
>
> Ok.
>
> > As to some hyothetical future situation where the land of other planets
> > begins to be colonized, then perhaps someone could claim to own, for
> > instance, all of Mars if they are the first to occupy it. However
> > legitimate that claim may be, I do not pretend it is realistically valid.
> > Now if for instance a collaboration of nation-states colonizes and claims
> > Mars and has the power to enforce that claim, then again irrespective of
> > the rights of those who come later the reality of the situation would be
> > that those collaborators do indeed own Mars. Unless the late arrivals wish
> > to start a war they have no choice but to peacefully negociate with the
> > orginal claiments.
>
> Ok.
>
I am glad to see you agree with me on these points Mr. Brehm.
> > > ([0]: It is here ignored whether one can sell oneself to slavery or
> > > not.)
> > >
> > > Group B is a liberal group. Their rules for interaction are as follows:
> > >
> > > B1: A man owns himself.
> > >
> > > B2: A man ows what he produces unless he agreed otherwise.
> > >
> > > B3: Land is owned by the community and rented out to whoever agreed to
> > > pay the highest rent for it. The rent is devided among the people who
> > > live in the region and thus create the land's value by being a market.
> >
> > If by rent you mean purchase a title allowing temporally limited but
> > exclusive use, then this does not seem unreasonable. I view property
> > taxes as a form of rent, but paid to my local government as a form of
> > protection money to keep others from taking land to which I have
> > title, or own. If it weren't for the protection of said government,
> > then my claim to my land would be based only on my own ability to
> > defend it.
>
> Exactly.
>
Ok.
> > > Group C is a communist group. Their rules for interaction are as
> > > follows:
> > >
> > > C1: A man owns himself.
> > >
> >
> > Really? My understanding of communism is that man doesn't own his own
> > body in that he must work at whatever the governmnt tells him to.
>
> That's Stalinism. It is not what communists originally wanted or
> demanded.
>
Aside from small, voluntary communes, can you point to ANY example of
communism that has not devolved into what I described?
Again, if human nature were different (alas for the peaceful hippies),
then communism could work on a global scale.
> > > C2: The community owns what is produced.
> > >
> > > C3: The community owns the land. [1]
> >
> > In reality it seems that the strong end up owning the land and the
> > weak get little if anything. Assuming people were inherently good and
> > did not seek power over others, then communism could work.
>
> I have seen communism work in smaller and greater scale. (Where
> "communism" is any system where private property does not exist where
> relevant.)
>
Smaller scale yes, but exactly what greater scale are you talking
about? And what do you mean by “work”? Did it allow for the
advancement and flourishing of those practicing it and a resulting
higher standard of living?
> > > ([1]: We will ignore what system they use to figure out who works on
> > > what peace of land.)
> > >
> > > And group D is a facsist group. Their rules for interaction are as
> > > follows:
> > >
> > > D1: The community owns the men.
> > >
> > > D2: The community owns what is produced.
> > >
> > > D3: The community owns the land. [2]
> > >
> > > ([2]: "to own" in this context means to have exclusive rights to use the
> > > object in question. Note that "community" means different things for
> > > communists and fascists. In fascism community is exclusive, in communism
> > > it's inclusive.)
> > >
> >
> > Sounds uncomfortably close to what we have here in the USA.
>
> :-)
>
</begin rant>
Heil Bush!
Homeland security my a*#. What the hell is the Defense Department for
then, global expansion?
If we (the USA) want to control more of the world well there is a
constitutional way to do it. Admit more states into the Union. Like
Isreal, or Tawain, or Kuait. Of course then those states would have to
abide by our constitution as well.
</end rant>
> > > Now assuming these four groups interact with each other. They have
> > > multiplied and the regions they have lived in are now connected. Which
> > > rules should they obey?
> > >
> > > 1. They should fight it out and only one group should survive.
> > >
> > > 2. They should fight it out and the winning group should enforce their
> > > rules.
> > >
> > > 3. The should compromise.
> > >
> > > I advocate compromise, because I think it is the least violent solution.
> > >
> > > ABCD1: A man owns himself.
> > >
> > > (I consider this point important enough to justify violence against
> > > anybody who resorts to violence to oppose that axiom.)
> > >
> > > ABCD2: A man owns what he produces.
> > >
> > > (This is very compatible, because those groups who disagree can still
> > > put their own efforts into community property.)
> > >
> > > ABCD3: The community owns the land.
> > >
> > > (I have already mentioned that people must survive. If the capitalist
> > > group consists of producing members, they can easily pay the rent for
> > > their land and treat it as their "property" among each other. There is
> > > no reason why the capitalist group should receive the free gift of
> > > "owning" all the land they want. They haven't produced the land, they
> > > lose nothing if they don't own it.)
> > >
> > > What do you advocate?
> > >
> >
> > I would advocate war. From the point of view of the capitalist/socialist
> > one cannot negociate with those who wish to enslave you since such
> > negotiation is based on the assumtion that you can trust the
> > fascist/communist to keep their word. I do not agree with that assumption.
> > Conversely, from the point of view of communist/fascist the presence of a
> > capitalist/liberal society is an inherent threat since most rational
> > people do not wish to be slaves and would seek to immigrate to where they
> > could be free. Therefore to prevent their people from doing so they would
> > have to make war.
> >
> > I am not a pacifist. Just peaceful when left alone.
>
> Ok.
>
Thank you for agreeing with me that war is the best course of action
Mr. Brehm.
> > How about the following scenarios
> >
> > Group A is totalitarian.
> >
> > A1. Those with the most power own everything
> > A2. Those without power are at the mercy of those with power
> > A3. Power is kept from those without it by force of arms
> > A4. Those in power force others to others to work for their goals.
> >
> > Group B is libertarian
> >
> > B1. Everyone has equal access to weapons
> > B2. If one person preemptively seeks to gain power over others using
> > force, multiple others will forcefully act to stop them.
> > B3. In short order only those who are able to restrain their desire to
> > control others will be left alive.
> > B4. They will peacefully cooperate to achieve mutual goals.
> >
> > Group A and B meet. No compromise is possible. There is war. Natural
> > selection determines the outcome.
>
> War is not something I would want my society to accept as its laws.
>
War isn’t a law Mr. Brehm, it is the result of breakdown of law.
Besides, Ok usually indicates agreement with the preceeding statement.
Otherwise one could say "I disagree".
> Your comparison is also different from mine in principle.
>
> In my comparison everybody in the groups agrees with their group's
> philosophy.
>
People agree to be slaves in your supposed fascist state? Please don’t
insult our intelligence here in Usenet Mr. Brehm.
> In your case a war is fought between a group of free men and a group of
> slaves and masters.
>
> But that wasn't the case in my example.
>
Do you want to be a slave Mr. Brehm? I doubt it. What makes you think
anyone else would want to?
Hypothetical examples are all well and good, but if they have NO
grounding in reality then they are useless.
> > > > > > A farmer who owns his own farm is a capitalist. A farmer who rents
> > > > > > it from another is a tenant. Why do socialists think it's moral to
> > > > > > take away the farm from a capitalist farmer? Why do socialists
> > > > > > think it's moral for the Socialist state to rent it to a tenant?
> > > > >
> > > > > Logical error #8.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is assumed that socialists would take away land from a farmer,
> > > > > while the goal of socialism is equality, which means that under
> > > > > socialism the farmer in this example would keep as much and as good
> > > > > land as the others are given for their production and needs.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > In other words, socialists wouln't take away ALL of the farmers land,
> > > > only what THEY decide that the farmer doesn't need?
> > >
> > > You seem to think that a socialist deciding how much land a farmer needs
> > > is worse than a farmer deciding how much land everyboy else needs. I
> > > don't think so.
> >
> > In what way does a farmer decide how much land everybody else needs?
>
> The farmer in the scenario made up by the original poster rents out land
> to others. He doesn't even decide how much land others need, he only
> decides how much land he thinks others should be allowed to use.
>
> It's not even about need, it's only about permission.
>
Nothing was said by the original poster about who makes the decisions.
Obviously in order for a farmer to rent-out land someone else must
want to rent it. If the landowner asks too high a price, no one will
rent it, and the landowner will make NOTHING. If someone voluntarilly
decides to risk their money to rent the farmland it means that they
assume they can farm the land, pay the rent, and still make a profit.
Why would you wish to prohibit them from doing so? Maybe the renter
will make a profit, maybe they won’t. But as long as they voluntarilly
assume the risk then there is no coercion.
> > > > But Mr. Brehm, who has the wisdom to determine how much the farmer keeps
> > > > of his own land? Who decides how much the others are given?
> > >
> > > Land value taxation.
> > >
> > > > Or better yet, to whom do you grant the power to make such a decision?
> > >
> > > Government.
> > >
> >
> > I am not completely opposed to my local government collecting property
> > taxes.
>
> Ok. (But I am.)
>
Fine. Next time I need to pay property taxes I will ask you for the
money.
(aside, see how the qualified ok is different from the unqualified
ok?)
> > > > Are you going to impose the needed violence to make the farmer acquiesce?
> > >
> > > I am as willing to impose violence as the farmer will be. But I would
> > > advocate using less violence than he would.
> > >
> > > > Or do you prefer to pay others to do so?
> > >
> > > I prefer to pay others. Why is that important to you? Do you find it
> > > more moral when the farmer shoots another individual who needs to exist
> > > somewhere?
> >
> > The only time I feel shooting is justified is when someone shoots at
> > you or when someone invades the sanctity of anothers home. I don't
> > feel that trespass is grounds for killing, nor even wanton property
> > destruction. Now if one were to confront someone who was trespassing
> > and use the threat of force to make them leave, that could be
> > justifiable. Or if one confronts someone destroying ones property and
> > uses the threat of force to detain them until law enforcement arrives,
> > that could also be justifiable. Of course if the perpetrator of the
> > trespass or destruction in turn tries to use force to continue their
> > misguided ways, well natural selection would once more come into play.
> > However, I would be on the side of the defender, not the agressor.
>
> Who is the agressor?
>
> If somebody trespasses and the landlord shoots at him, who is the
> aggressor? Doesn't that depend on whether you believe that tresspassing
> is ok or not?
>
Please re-read my scenario Mr. Brehm, the answer is in there.
> > > > We, as biological organisms, have these desires imprinted upon us on a
> > > > genetic and cellular level, but our "free will" allows us to supersede
> > > > these instincts (albeit always by acquiring a belief that our own identity
> > > > extends beyond our copreal form). Free will also allows us to supersede
> > > > our predatory instincts to take territory by force and substitue said
> > > > instincts with peaceful free trade.
> > >
> > > I am all against taking territory by force, which is why I am against
> > > land ownership (which is institutionalized "taking territory by force").
> > >
> >
> > Ah, here you do have a point. At some time in the distant past the
> > land I occupy was indeed acquired by force. Alas the original
> > claiments are long gone and redress is impossible. However, there is
> > one political party in the USA which actually supports the rights of
> > Native Americans to potentially reclaim what was stolen from them.
> >
> > http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/amerindi.html
> > American Indian Rights
> > The rights of American Indians have been usurped over the years. We
> > support the following remedies: (1) individuals should be free to
> > select their own citizenship and tribes should be free to select the
> > level of autonomy the tribe wishes, (2) Indians should have their
> > property rights restored, including rights of easement, access,
> > hunting, and fishing, (3) the Bureau of Indian Affairs should be
> > abolished leaving tribal members to determine their own system of
> > governance, and (4) negotiations should be undertaken to resolve all
> > outstanding differences between the tribes and the government.
> >
> > Therefore, if by some chance it were sufficently proven that my title
> > to land I own is invalid, then I may just be forced to leave. But
> > that's why one does a title search before purchasing land, and there
> > is something called title insurance that could provide compensation.
> >
> > I must apologize and end my response here Mr. Brehm.
> >
> > Thank you for your time in replying to me and for making me question
> > my asumptions. I do not pretend to have all the answers, but I once in
> > a while I do try to dig a little deeper to find them. Your opinions
> > have been most helpful to me in doing so.
> >
> > (snip the rest of Mr. Brehms response).
>
> Ok. Thank you for a good argument.
You are most welcome sir.
I notice you have no reply to the fact that the Libertarian Party
supports the rights of Native Americans to persue land claims against
the US government, or to peacefully rule their own lands as autonomous
entities. Why is that?
Good talking to you Mr. Brehm.
William C Colley
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> > Abolishing private property is not "theft" any more than changing any
> > other law is breaking it.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Excellent observation, Andrew!
Thanks.
> Abolishing private property in the means of production is
> not abolishing personal property as the means to happiness.
Indeed.
> Private property in the means of production serves only to prevent the
> propertyless from free access to the means of production, and if you
> prohibit the many from freedom of entrée to the means of production, then
> you have property rights that can only become manifest in the co-existence
> of excessive property with extreme poverty. There are no real property
> rights as long as there are people caught and trapped in poverty. No
> human being deserves poverty. No able and willing person should be denied
> access to the means of production. No person ought to be denied a means
> of livelihood. And no person ought to have the power to deny another
> person a means of support.
I disagree with some of that, but I agree with the idea behind the
statement.
--
Andrew J. Brehm
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
Alexander Nekvasil
> On 09 Aug 2002 17:09:48 +0200, Alexander Nekvasil
> <a850...@unet.univie.ac.at> wrote:
>
> >Jesse Nowells <jnow...@transbay.net> writes:
> >
> >> On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, robert parker wrote:
> >>
> >> > Socialism is a refuge for thieves.
> >>
> >> Capitalism is arguably a far better vehicle for theft.
> >
> >Technically it is not theft, but it is fairly evident
> >that capitalism is not property-friendly, as witness the
> >billions of people that lose their livelihoods over time
> >due to capitalist practices.
> >
> As opposed to the billion of people that have
> built a comfortable life for them selves, using
> proven capitalist procedures?
No, not "as opposed". _Because_.
> Actually the poverty stricken people of this world are
> those that have never had a capitalist economy.
It depends on where you have your capitalist economy.
When you have it trampling over you, then you are poor.
When you ride it while it tramples over others, you can
build a comfortable life for yourself.
> If it weren`t for the charity of capitalist
> their lot would be worse.
First you take the white out of their eyes, then you
give them a handout.
Woodard R. Springstube
news:3D5547D3...@bellsouth.net:
> Constantinople wrote:
>> In fact everyone is born owning nothing.
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
>> Are there no birthrights?
>
> Constantinople wrote:
>> I wouldn't say that the baby owns that property, yet.
>> Maybe I should have said, "aside from gifts, everyone is
>> born owning nothing."
>
> Einheit wrote:
>> Still way off. What about inheritance? Not to mention the
>> fact that those born into a wealthy family are more likely
>> to have recieved a better education and better contacts,
>> etc. It is NOT an even playing field.
>
> Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
>> I hate to tell you this, but it will never be an even
>> playing field.
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Such words from a Ph.D., teaching others.
Even laying aside the social and economic inequalities, would
it be an even playing field to put me, 53, fat, and out of
shape, playing one-on-one with any NBA basketball player? It
would be even in the sense of both of us playing by the same
rules, but, in terms of who is going to win, it would not be
even. I would have absolutely no chance to beat an NBA player
in such a constest, and could not have in my best days. In
that sense, there cannot be an even playing field.
>
> What is the use and worth of knowledge? What is the
> purpose and benefit of knowledge? To enrich the person's
> life, and to improve a person's chances? What about social
> life? Can an educated public live an enriched associated
> life, and can an educated people improve its chances at
> creating a better life together?
But, not everyone has an equal ability to learn. I have
students who have real problems with quantitative skills.
They struggle to learn what others can do almost effortlessly.
I, myself, have very few problems learning quantitative
material, but struggle with languages. Why? Different people
have different talents. I have known people who had
absolutely no interest in learning in the academic sense, but
are quite talented in other areas.
>
> You are a weak and wasted cynic. You are a fault-finding
> and a nay-saying pessimist. You have taken the right side,
> suited to your hideous defeatism and your distasteful
> misanthropy.
And you, sirra, are either an incurable utopian or a cynical
liar. You know that socialism has never worked on a national
scale, but you just talk about how that wasn't the real thing
and the next time it will be all different. Every attempt to
establish the system that you advocate has degenerated into
state socialism when it was co-opted by ruthless tyrants who
then committed mass murder. You have never explained in any
detail the mechanisms that your system would use to coordinate
production, determine what people need (as opposed to what
they just want), and how they would choose their employment,
or any one of a thousand other details. You just tell us,
"Trust me." Well, you have given us no empirical reason to
trust you or to believe in your ideology. When challenged to
try to set up a small-scale commune to demonstrate the
superiority of the system you advocate, you just whine about
how the capitalist system makes that impossible by keeping you
from obtaining [for free] the resources you need to do that.
>
> There will never be any good or better life together for as
> long as we believe that there never will be a good or
> better life together. Before we can create a virtuous and
> worthy life together, we must first believe that such a
> common life together is possible and preferable. Your
> pessimism is not wholesome. If there is no moral ability,
> then there is no moral ibligation. If I can do better,
> then I should do better; if I can be upright, then I ought
> to be upright. What you're saying is that there is no moral
> capacity, no moral potential, and that serves only to
> amputate hope for a better future, to dismiss effort in the
> present, and to disclaim the very moral freedom which makes
> personal excellence possible, and which makes self
> government a real possibility.
>
Not every person is morally excellent. You implicitly assume
that people sometimes behave selfishly and viciously because
they live in a corrupt system. I, OTOH, assume that the
system has corruption because people sometimes behave
selfishly and corruptly. A system is the sum of its parts.
You assume that they would be no danger from sociopaths and
psychopaths if we just had the wonderful collectivist system.
I look at history and see the previous attempts to move
towards a fully socialist society being hijacked by the
sociopaths and homocidal maniacs like Stalin and his little
playmate, Beria. The rest of what you say is just pretty
words, devoid of substantive meaning.
>
> Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
>> Something called genetics guarantees that it will never be
>> an even playing field unless you genetically engineer
>> every person to have the athletic ability of Michael
>> Jordan and the intelligence of Albert Einstein.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Socialism is not about genetic engineering, or about social
> engineering. Socialists want a level playing field, and
> that's about social relationships and about personal power
> in political associations. There are the players, and
> there is the playing field. Democratic and egalitarian
> socialism are all about changing the playing field, and
> have nothing whatsoever to do with changing the players.
> Every socialist and every communist knows that people are
> different, and we believe this is a positive and
> praiseworthy good. Human beings have different and unequal
> abilities, just as human beings have different and unequal
> needs. It has always been a tactic of anti-socialists to
> misrepresent socialist ideas as a means of confounding the
> people and of frustrating any opportunity for building a
> better way of life together.
>
But socialism is about equality of outcomes. However, given
the wide variety of human talents and ambitions, the only way
to have equality of outcomes is by forced redistribution.
Again, you retreat into pretty rhetoric with little or no
substantive meaning.
I prefer equity to egalitarianism. Equity says that you don't
screw people around. Egalitarianism says that you can screw
people all you want as long as everbody gets the same number
of inches. After all, you are treating everybody the same in
that situation. You talk about how you will respect
individual differences, but you advocate a system that lumps
individuals into groups and classes in its foundational
thinking.
>
> Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
>> Many of these are genetically mediated. And, even if we
>> had perfect equality of opportunity, the differences in
>> people would guarantee differences in outcomes.
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> It would if the war of all against all is our fixed fate.
> But human beings are free. We can be what we will to be.
So I can be an NBA player if I want to? Hardly!
> We can be greedy or generous, selfish or selfless. We can
> be instinctive, or we can be intelligent. We can take more
> than we give, or we can give more than we take.
And, in a socialist system, there will be enough who take more
than they give to bolix up the whole system.
We can do
> whatever we want to do. Life is not a choice; death is not
> a choice. How we live can be a choice; how we die can be
> a choice. Every person I meet is a pilgrim I encounter on
> my/our journey from birth to death. We happen to share a
> moment in space and time. I can respect and regard the
> other I meet as my equal, or I can disrespect or disregard
> the other as an unequal. I can be fair or unfair; I can be
> just or unjust. I am not one or the other, I am both of
> these. I am the sum of the choices I have made, and I will
> be the sum of the choice I will make. I came from nothing,
> and I go to nothing. The other person may have better than
> average abilities, or more than average needs; but we are
> identical in our being human. There are people with more
> abilities than I possess, and there are people with less
> abilities than I have; but there is no people who is more
> or less human than I am. The same can be said about needs.
>
So, this really doesn't make much of a case for socialism.
The thing that you also seem to ignore is that the anarcho-
socialism that you advocate is, according all empirical
evidence, an oxymoron.
>
> Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
>> The only way to have even approximately equal outcomes is
>> to penalize the successful and reward the failures through
>> various redistribution schemes.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Redistributionism is not socialism. It's not even welfare
> statism. Redistribution is myth.
Socialism will always lead to statism. Anarcho-socialism is
an oxymoron.
>
> Equal outcomes is not socialism. Equal opportunity and
> equal access are what socialism is about. If people have
> different needs, and different abilities, there will be
> different outcomes. "From each according to ability" does
> not deny unequal abilities. "To each according to need"
> does not deny unequal needs. Those who hold this communist
> formula in contempt often display a misconception both of
> its meaning and of its moral.
And, how are peoples' needs determined to ensure that somebody
doesn't take more than they need? How is somebody's ability
determined to ensure that they really do produce according to
their ability instead of at 50% of ability? Those questions
are what drive socialism into statism, whips, state slavery,
and mass murder.
>
> We all have different abilities, but we all have the same
> ability to love others, to respect and regard others, to
> show good will in our associations with others. We all
> have different needs, but we all have the same need to be
> loved by others, to be respected and regarded by others,
> to be shown good will in our relationships with others.
>
>
> Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
>> I was not born into a wealthy family. My father had a
>> third grade education, and my mother had about a tenth
>> grade education. My father wore overalls first as a
>> farmer and later running a little country store, and my
>> mother did in-home child care for our local physician.
>> I have a Ph.D. and teach college. I make about as much in
>> a week as my dad used to make in a year; although, the
>> costs of living are much higher now. Your push for
>> egalitarianism is a bunch of baloney and an excuse to grab
>> power for yourself and your little socialist friends, who
>> will then tyrannize the rest of us "for our own good."
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> There are those who believe your parents deserved what they
> got, and got what they deserved. The wealthy did more and
> worked more than your parents, and so the wealthy earned
> more than your parents, or so they will say. What do you
> say? Did they deserve their poverty?
No. They had the misfortune to be born in a world where
education was much less available than it is today. But, dad
did make some one bad choice that haunted us for years. When
he farmed in Colorado, we had money, enough to buy a Packard
car new for $2,900 in 1949. That was a bit of cash back then.
But, later, we had to leave Colorado because the doctor told
my mother she had to get out of the high altitude country.
Dad, instead of buying some good bottom land in Oklahoma
bought a country store. However, when he did, it was just
before the exodus from that rural area began. Within ten
years the change in demographics of the area had guaranteed
that the store would just give us a bare living. That is when
mom went to work. Did they deserve that? No. Did my dad
make a bad decision? Yes, in retrospect, but hindsight is
20/20. If I am equivocating, it is because I have very mixed
thinking about this question. But, I don't see socialism as
an answer, since my parents were first, landowning farmers and
later landowning storekeepers. In either case, they would be
considered by Marxists as petty bourgeoisie, subject to
expropriation of what little property they had.
>
> I'm sure that I can say/write nothing that will change your
> bad opinion both of my motives and of my philosophy.
>
You are absolutely correct. The history of socialism has been
too marked by utopian failures and statist terror to give any
credence to what you advocate.
Ron Allen
> Abolishing private property in the means of production is not abolishing
> personal property as the means to happiness.
Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> Indeed.
Ron Allen wrote:
> Private property in the means of production serves only to prevent the
> propertyless from free access to the means of production, and if you
> prohibit the many from freedom of entrée to the means of production, then
> you have property rights that can only become manifest in the co-existence
> of excessive property with extreme poverty. There are no real property
> rights as long as there are people caught and trapped in poverty. No
> human being deserves poverty. No able and willing person should be denied
> access to the means of production. No person ought to be denied a means
> of livelihood. And no person ought to have the power to deny another
> person a means of support.
Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> I disagree with some of that, but I agree with the idea behind the
> statement.
Ron Allen answers:
When you've got the time, I hope that you'll explain in more
detail where and why you disagree with some of the ideas I
have expressed. We've communicated in the past, and we've
always had some common ground; but I'm still unsure of your
reasons for hanging back -- i.e., your reasons for not
simply and entirely advocating a democratic and collective
casting off of capitalist property and power relations.
Of course, I find that your more Lockean version of a fair
and just capitalism is far better than any version of
capitalism realized thus far. And when I think about the
socialist and communist critique of capitalism, I find that
it is founded upon a Lockean critique of property rights.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"Money is something you got to make in case you don't die."
-- Max Asnas
Dana
"Alexander Nekvasil" <a850...@unet.univie.ac.at> wrote in message
news:3d5554e0$0$19608$3b21...@news.univie.ac.at...
> robpar...@airmail.net (robert parker) writes:
> It depends on where you have your capitalist economy.
> When you have it trampling over you, then you are poor.
How about if you back this claim up.
Constantinople
> Constantinople wrote:
> | >| > If I consent to read Amy a bedtime story, then I will die. (Simple
> | >| > logic: if A, then if B then A.) But I consent to read Amy a bedtime
> | >| > story. Conclusion: I regularly consent to arrangements in which I must
> | >| > die.
>
> Jesse Nowells <jnow...@transbay.net>:
> | >| Consenting to read a story has nothing necessarily to do with an
> | >| eventuality that will come if you read the story or not. Besides that it
> | >| looks like you're trying to affirm the consequent, which is a fallacy.
>
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
> | > I don't think Constantinople followed the logic. His
> | > response was silly and there's not much to say about it.
>
> Constantinople <constan...@yahoo.com>:
> | Gordon, your response was absurd. I told you what "right to life" means,
> | and that it is not a blank check for socialism, and you simply ignored the
> | point and kept on using your interpretation. You did not present any
> | counter-argument, or even give any evidence that you had read my post.
>
> Well, I think I did, so there.
Not yet, but it looks like like you're about to give it a better try,
since you actually mention a "right not to be killed".
> I would think it would be obvious that a right to live as
> just the right not to be killed doesn't have much of anything
> to do with access to tools and land.
OK.
> One needs tools and
> land to make a living, not to defend oneself from killers.
>
> So if there is a right to live, then there must be some kind
> of right to tools and land so that one can produce what one
> needs to live.
Like I said, the phrase "right to life" does not mean "right to
make a living", with all that that implies, such as a minimum
wage - living wage - tools, land, and so on. At least you seem
to recognize this.
As to the supposed right to tools, this imposes an obligation on
others. Specifically, someone is obligated to provide the tools,
and someone is obligated to give up land which he is presumably
currently using. Who has this obligation? How is this obligation
enforced? In the real world these questions have been answered:
the state enforces these obligations by taxing and spending. You
need a state to collect taxes. In contrast, self-defense is in
the real world largely decentralized. I lock my house, etc. I
don't expect the police to confront an intruder.
> But this idea runs directly athwart liberal
> notions of property.
>
> It's obvious that no one wants to deal with this contradiction
It's a "contradiction" that you manufacture by interpreting the
phrase to mean something you favor, as a positive obligation that
amounts to a blank check for every statist program in existence.
G*rd*n
| > So if there is a right to live, then there must be some kind
| > of right to tools and land so that one can produce what one
| > needs to live.
constan...@yahoo.com (Constantinople):
| Like I said, the phrase "right to life" does not mean "right to
| make a living", with all that that implies, such as a minimum
| wage - living wage - tools, land, and so on. At least you seem
| to recognize this.
| ...
It depends what "right to life/live" is taken to mean. If
people start talking about land and tools, they're talking
about more than the right not to be killed. As you may
recall, Jetgraphics mentioned land and tools.
Ron Allen
> In fact everyone is born owning nothing.
Ron Allen wrote:
> Are there no birthrights?
Constantinople wrote:
> I wouldn't say that the baby owns that property, yet. Maybe I should
> have said, "aside from gifts, everyone is born owning nothing."
Einheit wrote:
> Still way off. What about inheritance? Not to mention the fact that
> those born into a wealthy family are more likely to have recieved a
> better education and better contacts, etc. It is NOT an even playing
> field.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> I hate to tell you this, but it will never be an even playing field.
Ron Allen wrote:
> Such words from a Ph.D., teaching others.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> Even laying aside the social and economic inequalities, would it be an
> even playing field to put me, 53, fat, and out of shape, playing one-on-
> one with any NBA basketball player? It would be even in the sense of
> both of us playing by the same rules, but, in terms of who is going to
> win, it would not be even. I would have absolutely no chance to beat
> an NBA player in such a constest, and could not have in my best days.
> In that sense, there cannot be an even playing field.
Ron Allen answers:
How does a competitive athletic ethic translate into what
should be a cooperative economic ethic? You want to keep
talking about the different abilities of the players, and
so you're not addressing the matter of an even playing
field. In the arena of economics, as opposed to the arena
of athletics, the players do not enjoy equal opportunity
or equal access, and that has little or nothing to do with
personal ability, or even with honest competition. Asking
for an equitable and impartial playing field is not the same
thing as asking for people to have the very same abilities.
There was a time when being black was enough to keep you
wholly excluded from the opportunities enjoyed by whites,
and when being female was enough to rule you out from all
the openings given to males. Racism and sexism have nothing
at all to do with the ability or disability of a person.
In a more racist society, Michael Jordan would have never
gotten as far as he did. An equal playing field is not one
that requires every player be the equal of Michael Jordan,
but that every player have equal opportunity on the playing
field and equal access to the collective resources that are
in play.
Michael Jordan is very good at playing basketball; but I
do not believe that he is made happier by all his wealth.
Wealth is a stand in for what people really desire. What
people really desire is the regard and respect of their
peers. Wealth is nothing more than a means of filling in
what is missing, even to a life of real accomplishments;
and what is missing all too often is love. Even the
wealthy can see behind the cheering and smiling masses.
I'm all in favor of athletic competition; but I believe
there is too much at stake in economic competition. We
risk too much when we apply an ethic that is proper to
athletics as if it were also applicable to economics.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"Whoever is happy will make others happy too. He who has
courage and faith will never perish in misery."
-- Anne Frank
Ron Allen
> What is the use and worth of knowledge? What is the purpose and benefit
> of knowledge? To enrich the person's life, and to improve a person's
> chances? What about social life? Can an educated public live an
> enriched associated life, and can an educated people improve its chances
> at creating a better life together?
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> But, not everyone has an equal ability to learn.
Ron Allen answers:
That may very well be true; but I suspect that the majority
of human beings have enough of an ability to learn, and to
think, that a socialist democracy would be fully functional.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> I have students who have real problems with quantitative skills.
> They struggle to learn what others can do almost effortlessly. I,
> myself, have very few problems learning quantitative material, but
> struggle with languages. Why? Different people have different
> talents. I have known people who had absolutely no interest in
> learning in the academic sense, but are quite talented in other
> areas.
Ron Allen answers:
And, why does this explain your disbelief in democratic
socialism as both a viable possibility and a libertarian
politics? Can't people with different abilities respect
and regard each other as being equals, as being good and
full citizens, with equal freedom and equal dignity?
<><><><><><><><><><>
"Lots of fellows think a home is only good to borrow money
on."
-- Frank McKinney Hubbard
Ron Allen
> You are a weak and wasted cynic. You are a fault-finding and a
> nay-saying pessimist. You have taken the right side, suited to
> your hideous defeatism and your distasteful misanthropy.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> And you, sirra, are either an incurable utopian or a cynical liar.
Ron Allen answers:
I assume you believe that I'm both.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> You know that socialism has never worked on a national scale, . . .
Ron Allen answers:
I will tell you what I know. Socialism has never been tried
on a national scale.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> . . . but you just talk about how that wasn't the real thing and the
> next time it will be all different.
Ron Allen answers:
That is, in my opinion, a perfectly valid claim. When it
comes to socialism, the real thing is democracy. Unless
and until socialism is really democratic, it will never
succeed, not even the next time. It will be different the
next time only if it is truly democratic the next time.
The difference is democracy.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> Every attempt to establish the system that you advocate has degenerated
> into state socialism when it was co-opted by ruthless tyrants who then
> committed mass murder.
Ron Allen answers:
Every attempt in the past to establish socialism has been a
non-democratic attempt. Anti-democratic socialism does not
degenerate into state socialism; it begins as statism, and
it ends as statism.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> You have never explained in any detail the mechanisms that your system
> would use to coordinate production, determine what people need (as
> opposed to what they just want), and how they would choose their
> employment, or any one of a thousand other details. You just tell us,
> "Trust me."
Ron Allen answers:
When it comes to economic production, the activity is self-
coordinating, in that supplies of goods are produced to meet
social needs. In a socialist economy there is a counterpart
to capitalism's supply and demand reciprocity.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> Well, you have given us no empirical reason to trust you or to believe
> in your ideology.
Ron Allen answers:
I do not ask people to trust me; I ask people to trust both
themselves and other people to do the right thing, to be
responsible members of the community they live and work in.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> When challenged to try to set up a small-scale commune to demonstrate
> the superiority of the system you advocate, you just whine about how
> the capitalist system makes that impossible by keeping you from
> obtaining [for free] the resources you need to do that.
Ron Allen answers:
Not every valid response is a whining response, and nothing
more. It is very difficult to achieve a cooperative success
within a competitive struggle for economic dominance.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"I distrust all systematisers, and avoid them. The will to
a system shows a lack of honesty."
-- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
Ron Allen
> There will never be any good or better life together for as long as we
> believe that there never will be a good or better life together. Before
> we can create a virtuous and worthy life together, we must first believe
> that such a common life together is possible and preferable. Your
> pessimism is not wholesome. If there is no moral ability, then there is
> there is no moral capacity, no moral potential, and that serves only to
> amputate hope for a better future, to dismiss effort in the present, and
> to disclaim the very moral freedom which makes personal excellence
> possible, and which makes self government a real possibility.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> Not every person is morally excellent.
Ron Allen answers:
Do you even know what you're talking about? What do you
know about every person? When people are tested, more often
than not, they prove themselves to be good citizens and good
neighbors. I place my confidence in the people; you place
your confidence in property. I put my faith in everyman;
you place too much faith in élites.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> You implicitly assume that people sometimes behave selfishly and
> viciously because they live in a corrupt system.
Ron Allen answers:
I believe that a selfish and greedy system promotes selfish
and greedy behavior. I believe people are both selfish and
selfless, both greedy and generous; and that if society
encourages and cultivates money-hunger, an ethic of conceit,
arrogance, and intemperance, then it is very likely that
these perverse vices and perverted values will win the day.
We do live in a corrupt system, and this system corrodes
the social virtues and cooperative values.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> I, OTOH, assume that the system has corruption because people sometimes
> behave selfishly and corruptly.
Ron Allen answers:
People are selfish, just as people are selfless. If the
system rewards selfishness, then it is more than likely that
the system corrupts human being and behavior simply by its
very reward structures. Look around you. Greed is king!
We the people put all our faith in greedy capitalists and
in greedy politicians. We've been told to put our faith in
these gods. You're still telling us to put our confidence
in those greedy robber barons and party bosses.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> A system is the sum of its parts. You assume that they would be no
> danger from sociopaths and psychopaths if we just had the wonderful
> collectivist system.
Ron Allen answers:
I assume there will be some sociopaths and psychopaths in a
socialist democracy. I also assume that a libertarian and
democratic society will produce less sociopathic and less
psychopathic individuals. When freedom and dignity are not
just believed in, but also recognized and observed, and when
health and wealth are realized as a right, then there will
likely be less of those pathologies cause by shameful
poverty and by social alienation.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> I look at history and see the previous attempts to move towards a fully
> socialist society being hijacked by the sociopaths and homocidal maniacs
> like Stalin and his little playmate, Beria. The rest of what you say is
> just pretty words, devoid of substantive meaning.
Ron Allen answers:
Your posts are devoid of the optimism of democratic
expectations, and of the encouragement of humanistic
aspirations.
Your knowledge does not give power to the people; it gives
paralysis and impotence. Knowledge that does not serve the
people isn't worth teaching.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"No man is a failure who is enjoying life."
-- William Feather
Ron Allen
> Something called genetics guarantees that it will never be an even
> playing field unless you genetically engineer every person to have
> the athletic ability of Michael Jordan and the intelligence of
> Albert Einstein.
Ron Allen wrote:
> Socialism is not about genetic engineering, or about social engineering.
> Socialists want a level playing field, and that's about social
> relationships and about personal power in political associations. There
> are the players, and there is the playing field. Democratic and
> egalitarian socialism are all about changing the playing field, and
> have nothing whatsoever to do with changing the players. Every
> socialist and every communist knows that people are different, and we
> believe this is a positive and praiseworthy good. Human beings have
> different and unequal abilities, just as human beings have different
> and unequal needs. It has always been a tactic of anti-socialists to
> misrepresent socialist ideas as a means of confounding the people and
> of frustrating any opportunity for building a better way of life
> together.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> But socialism is about equality of outcomes.
Ron Allen answers:
I do not know what you mean by that expression, "equality
of outcomes". If people have different needs, then that
alone insures different outcomes. If the social philosophy
of socialism and communism affirms "to each according to
need", then that alone is a clear endorsement of different
results for different people, different payoffs for people
with different needs.
There have been people, on this very newsgroup, who believe
they need a luxury yacht if we were to establish a social
democratic system. I do not need a luxury yacht, and so
there would be some different and unequal payoffs if some
need a yacht while others do not. What I want is what will
facilitate my happiness. A luxury yacht may facilitate one
person's happiness; but having a yacht will not facilitate
my happiness. I do not begrudge those who need a yacht,
but I do not need a yacht because others need one.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> However, given the wide variety of human talents and ambitions, the
> only way to have equality of outcomes is by forced redistribution.
Ron Allen answers:
Again, I do not believe socialism or communism are about
equality of outcomes. I believe in equal opportunity and
in equal access, but I do not believe that an equality of
outcomes is a wholesome objective.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> Again, you retreat into pretty rhetoric with little or no substantive
> meaning.
<><><><><><><><><><><>
"The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill
a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."
-- Albert Camus
Ron Allen
> People have differing abilities, talents, strengths, and weaknesses.
Ron Allen wrote:
> Yes, this is true; and egalitarian democratic ideas and ideals do not
> deny this truth. Those who do not advocate egalitarian democracy like
> to impute this nonsense as if it were a feature of the democratic
> demand for equality. But this is merely a distortion of egalitarian
> philosophy, and a calculated falsification of democratic politics.
> We want a level playing field. We do not want players with equal
> abilities, or people with uniform needs. We believe that people with
> better than average abilities do not always or necessarily have more
> than average needs. We believe that better than average abilities
> are rewarded by the freedom to be fully engaged in activities which
> allow the free employment of different personal abilities. We believe
> that the more intelligent a person is, the less will such a person need
> symbols of merit and tokens of esteem. All of us need the love of
> others -- we need the respect and the appreciation of others. It is
> because we live in a competitive environment that we are forced to
> take what is offered -- i.e., more income, more wealth. This is not
> the real thing. Material wealth is a substitute for the absence of
> love. Class is a surrogate for the lack of dignity.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> I prefer equity to egalitarianism. Equity says that you don't screw
> people around. Egalitarianism says that you can screw people all you
> want as long as everbody gets the same number of inches.
Ron Allen answers:
Egalitarianism is about each person treating their peers as
their equals. If I do not like being fucked, the I ought
not fuck others. If I do not like being fleeced, then I
should not fleece other people.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> After all, you are treating everybody the same in that situation. You
> talk about how you will respect individual differences, but you advocate
> a system that lumps individuals into groups and classes in its
> foundational thinking.
Ron Allen answers:
What is is not the ideal. In order to know the ideal, we
must know the real. In order to transcend a society that
is divided into classes, we must first be aware of this
division, and analyze its material causes and ascertain
from the causes the best possible corrective measures.
I believe that you will never solve the problems of class
division unless and until you first recognize the problem
and its causes.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"All good things are powerful stimulants to life, even every
good book which is written against life."
-- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
Ron Allen
> We can be greedy or generous, selfish or selfless. We can be
> instinctive, or we can be intelligent. We can take more than we give,
> or we can give more than we take.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> And, in a socialist system, there will be enough who take more than
> they give to bolix up the whole system.
Ron Allen answers:
What is it about capitalism that keeps greedy people from
taking more than they give?
<><><><><><><><><><>
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital
is only the fruit of labor and would never have existed if
labor had not existed first."
-- Abraham Lincoln
Ron Allen
> Many of these are genetically mediated. And, even if we had perfect
> equality of opportunity, the differences in people would guarantee
> differences in outcomes.
Ron Allen wrote:
> It would if the war of all against all is our fixed fate. But human
> beings are free. We can be what we will to be.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> So I can be an NBA player if I want to? Hardly!
Ron Allen answers:
Do you really and truly want to be an NBA player?
<><><><><><><><><><>
"Economic life must be inspired by Christian principles."
-- Achille Ratti (Pope Pius XI)
Ron Allen
> We can do whatever we want to do. Life is not a choice; death is not
> a choice. How we live can be a choice; how we die can be a choice.
> Every person I meet is a pilgrim I encounter on my/our journey from
> birth to death. We happen to share a moment in space and time. I can
> respect and regard the other I meet as my equal, or I can disrespect
> or disregard the other as an unequal. I can be fair or unfair; I can
> be just or unjust. I am not one or the other, I am both of these. I
> the all choices I will make in the future. I came from nothing, and
> abilities, or more than average needs; but we are identical in our
> being human. There are people with more abilities than I possess, and
> there are people with less abilities than I have; but there is no
> needs.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> So, this really doesn't make much of a case for socialism.
Ron Allen answers:
I think it's part and parcel of the argument for socialism.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> The thing that you also seem to ignore is that the anarcho-socialism
> that you advocate is, according all empirical evidence, an oxymoron.
Ron Allen answers:
What empirical evidence? I do not believe anarcho-socialism
is a conceptual oxymoron.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> The only way to have even approximately equal outcomes is to penalize
> the successful and reward the failures through various redistribution
> schemes.
Ron Allen wrote:
> Redistributionism is not socialism. It's not even welfare statism.
> Redistribution is myth.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> Socialism will always lead to statism.
Ron Allen answers:
On this we disagree.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> Anarcho-socialism is an oxymoron.
Ron Allen answers:
On this we disagree.
Ron Allen wrote:
> Equal outcomes is not socialism. Equal opportunity and equal access
> are what socialism is about. If people have different needs, and
> different abilities, there will be different outcomes. "From each
> according to ability" does not deny unequal abilities. "To each
> according to need" does not deny unequal needs. Those who hold this
> communist formula in contempt often display a misconception both of
> its meaning and of its moral.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> And, how are peoples' needs determined to ensure that somebody doesn't
> take more than they need?
Ron Allen answers:
Why does that matter? Does it make any difference if some
people take more than they need in a capitalist economy?
Does greed destroy capitalism? If not, why would greed end
up destroying socialism?
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> How is somebody's ability determined to ensure that they really do
> produce according to their ability instead of at 50% of ability?
Ron Allen answers:
In our present capitalist context people do not maximize
their personal abilities, and yet capitalism does quite
well in your opinion. Do people with abilities like to
employ their abilities in a productive way? If so, then
what will stop them from fully and freely engaging their
abilities in a coöperative democracy?
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> Those questions are what drive socialism into statism, whips, state
> slavery, and mass murder.
Ron Allen answers:
I'm not convinced that you're asking the proper questions,
and I believe that your questions are often just about as
dishonest as are your paraphrases of the ideas and opinions
of socialists and communists.
<><><><><><><><><><><>
"Money is God in action."
-- Frederick J. Eikerenkoetter (Reverend Ike)
Ron Allen
> We all have different abilities, but we all have the same ability to
> love others, to respect and regard others, to show good will in our
> associations with others. We all have different needs, but we all have
> the same need to be loved by others, to be respected and regarded by
> others, to be shown good will in our relationships with others.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> I was not born into a wealthy family. My father had a third grade
> education, and my mother had about a tenth grade education. My father
> wore overalls first as a farmer and later running a little country
> store, and my mother did in-home child care for our local physician.
> I have a Ph.D. and teach college. I make about as much in a week as
> my dad used to make in a year; although, the costs of living are much
> higher now. Your push for egalitarianism is a bunch of baloney and
> an excuse to grab power for yourself and your little socialist friends,
> who will then tyrannize the rest of us "for our own good."
Ron Allen wrote:
> There are those who believe your parents deserved what they got, and
> got what they deserved. The wealthy did more and worked more than your
> parents, and so the wealthy earned more than your parents, or so they
> will say. What do you say? Did they deserve their poverty?
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> No. They had the misfortune to be born in a world where education
> was much less available than it is today. But, dad did make some one
> bad choice that haunted us for years. When he farmed in Colorado, we
> had money, enough to buy a Packard car new for $2,900 in 1949. That
> was a bit of cash back then. But, later, we had to leave Colorado
> because the doctor told my mother she had to get out of the high
> altitude country. Dad, instead of buying some good bottom land in
> Oklahoma bought a country store. However, when he did, it was just
> before the exodus from that rural area began. Within ten years the
> change in demographics of the area had guaranteed that the store
> would just give us a bare living. That is when mom went to work.
> Did they deserve that? No. Did my dad make a bad decision? Yes,
> in retrospect, but hindsight is 20/20. If I am equivocating, it is
> because I have very mixed thinking about this question. But, I don't
> see socialism as an answer, since my parents were first, landowning
> farmers and later landowning storekeepers. In either case, they
> would be considered by Marxists as petty bourgeoisie, subject to
> expropriation of what little property they had.
Ron Allen answers:
There are marxists who would endorse dispossessing the small
capital proprietor without a fair and just compensation, but
I do not advocate such ruthless measures. The owners of a
mom and pop store do not usually exploit other people's
labor, or extract exploitative prices from paying customers.
Ron Allen wrote:
> I'm sure that I can say/write nothing that will change your bad opinion
> both of my motives and of my philosophy.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> You are absolutely correct. The history of socialism has been too
> marked by utopian failures and statist terror to give any credence to
> what you advocate.
Ron Allen answers:
I fully understand your trepidations regarding socialism
and communism.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"A book is like a piece of rope; it takes on meaning only
in connection with the things it holds together."
-- Norman Cousins
robert parker
<raf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Alexander Nekvasil" <a850...@unet.univie.ac.at> wrote in message
>news:3d5554e0$0$19608$3b21...@news.univie.ac.at...
>> robpar...@airmail.net (robert parker) writes:
Please note that my statement was deleted. This
statement is by a lying socialist.
They truly poor live in non capitalist
societies. The poor in capitalist societies are
the envy of the middle class in the rest of the
world.
>> It depends on where you have your capitalist economy.
>> When you have it trampling over you, then you are poor.
>
>How about if you back this claim up.
>
Yes Alexander, back this claim up.
>
>
robert parker
(G*rd*n) wrote:
>(G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >| >That's wonderful, but it doesn't answer the question, since
>| >| >there's no guarantee that those who have no land or tools will
>| >| >be able to inherit them, get them as gifts, work for them,
>| >| >sell themselves into slavery, and so forth, and thus it seems
>| >| >the system of private property which Jetgraphics believes
>| >| >_protects_ a right to life actually contradicts some people's
>| >| >right to life. My conclusion is that the association of
>| >| >private property with a right to life is idle talk.
>
>robpar...@airmail.net (robert parker):
>| >| All tools and all productive land are the
>| >| results of work. Usually done by the owner, or
>| >| paid for by the owner. Justify taking the product
>| >| of my labor and giving it to some one who has not
>| >| done any work. Stop people from keeping the wealth
>| >| they create by work, and they stop producing.
>| >| Like every body is entitled to a home, sure
>| >| right now where are you going to get slaves to
>| >| build them all houses?
>
>g...@panix.com(G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >Are you disagreeing with what I said, or agreeing with it?
>| >I can't make out.
>
>robpar...@airmail.net (robert parker):
>| I seldom bother posting a agreement, so If I
>| respond to you It`s to express a disagreement.
>| Clear enough.
>
>No.
>
>| Furthermore giving tools to a lazy stupid ass
>| hole is a waste of money, as is providing homes
>| for those too stupid to provide for themselves.
>| The reason that government housing projects become
>| slums. Buildings don`t become slums until trashy
>| people move in.
>
>So what? I wasn't making an argument for Welfare.
>Take another look.
>
You take another look, your unjust lying attacks
on capitalism, is pure welfare/police state/
socialism.
>g...@panix.com(G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >I disagree with one thing you say: "Stop people from keeping
>| >the wealth they create by work, and they stop producing."
>| >This isn't necessarily the case. The less power someone has,
>| >the smaller the proportion of the product of their labor
>| >they can keep, the extreme case being a slave. But even so,
>| >the slave or the poor person will work for a pittance if the
>| >alternative is exposure, hunger, torture or death. But that's
>| >off the point here, I think.
>
>robpar...@airmail.net (robert parker):
>| Wealth is that amount not necessary to sustain
>| life. Of course most people will continue to do as
>| much as necessary to continue to live. But will no
>| longer produce a excess. Check it out a slave
>| economy has never produced even close to what a
>| capitalist economy produces. You really think a
>| socialist society would produce a Thomas Edison.
>
>You're way off the rails here. I said nothing about
>socialism or the efficiency of slave societies.
You can have capitalism, or socialism which is
slavery. And you support socialism/slavery.
Jetgraphics
"Ron Allen" <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3D554825...@bellsouth.net...
: Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
: > Abolishing private property is not "theft" any more than changing any
: > other law is breaking it.
:
: Ron Allen answers:
: Excellent observation, Andrew!
Which clearly supports the claim that SOCIALISTS are against LAW that
protects property rights from their thievery. The Socialists think 'law' is
changeable by the whim of a majority, ignoring the underlying difference in
forms of law.
MALUM IN SE - Lat: evil in itself; [`naturally
evil, as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community.' 259 P. 893,
898] ...For example, murder is `malum in se' because even without
a specific criminal prohibition the community would think it to be
an evil and wrongful act.
MALUM PROHIBITUM -"Lat: wrong because it is prohibited;
made unlawful by statute for the public welfare, but not inherently
evil and not involving moral turpitude. ...speeding along a highway
is malum prohibitum ... whereas, reckless driving is malum in se."
THEFT - The act of stealing. The taking of property without the owner's
consent.
Socialists who think that taking private property without consent is made
MORAL by changing the 'law' are ignorant of their evil intentions or wish us
to be ignorant of their evil intentions.
G*rd*n
| You take another look, your unjust lying attacks
| on capitalism, is pure welfare/police state/
| socialism.
1. I never lie on Usenet; there is no reason to.
2. I don't attack capitalism; I describe it.
3. The Welfare State and the Police State are incomptible
with socialism. I've explained this before.
James A. Donald
On 10 Aug 2002 23:13:18 -0400, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> 1. I never lie on Usenet; there is no reason to.
>
> 2. I don't attack capitalism; I describe it.
Your descriptions are unbelievable. Not only does no one believe
them, you yourself do not appear to believe them -- retreating
into epistemological fog when challenged.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
nOJX9IWNvARvGgA1ELAIRYVesSOTlaeOqiMS4tNE
2NotVl8mhmj3rmQLjobOg2zQKYMrO3WH1xqlWssmm
Ron Allen
> Socialists (& Communists) are opposed to private property, ergo, they
> are interested in stealing other people's private property.
Kam (kamerynn) wrote:
> Which socialists are opposed to private property, and why?
Jetgraphics wrote:
> I think the definition of terms is appropriate at this time.
> According to Webster's dictionary:
> CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production,
> distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for private
> profit.
Ron Allen answers:
This is a very good working definition of capitalism; and
it is a definition which the critics of capitalism usually
work with.
Jetgraphics wrote:
> According to Webster's dictionary:
> COMMUNISM - the ownership of property, or means of production,
> distribution and supply, by the whole of a classless society, with
> wealth shared on the principle of 'to each according to his need',
> each yielding fully 'according to his ability'.
> According to Webster's dictionary:
> SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective
> ownership of the means of production and control of distribution.
> It is based upon the belief that all, while contributing to the
> good of the community, are equally entitled to the care and
> protection which the community can provide.
> Now I'm no wizard of words, but it would appear that capitalism
> recognizes and supports private ownership for private profit.
Ron Allen answers:
Yes, that is very true.
Jetgraphics wrote:
> The Socialist, by definition, wants collective ownership (no private
> property rights) and a Communist, wants collective ownership (no
> private property rights).
Ron Allen answers:
It is important to understand that many socialist writers,
and many communist writers, especially marxist philosophers,
make a distinction between private property and personal
property. Erich Fromm makes this distinction clear: "When
Marx spoke of private property he was not referring to
personal property. Private property meant the means of
production of the capitalist who hires property-less
individuals under conditions the latter is forced to
accept."
Jetgraphics wrote:
> Anyone who claims that Socialism isn't against private property is
> either not aware of the definition of the term, or wishes others not
> to know the true definition of the term. Either way, the anti-
> capitalists of socialism and communism are thieves and scoundrels,
> devoted to the theft of other people's private property.
Ron Allen answers:
Socialists and communists are against private property in
the means of production, but are not against personal
property in the means of pleasure and comfort, or in the
means of personal satisfaction. There is property that is
properly personal, and there is property that is properly
social. I need a home, and so a home is properly personal
property which serves a personal need. I do not need a
factory, but the community does need a factory, and so a
factory is properly community property which serves the
needs of a community. I need a pair of shoes, but I do
not need a shoe factory.
Jetgraphics wrote:
> If someone IS for private property rights, and calls himself a
> Socialist, is either a liar or a loon. Would you trust a vegetarian
> cannibal? The terms are mutually exclusive.
Ron Allen answers:
A socialist and a communist will be opposed to private
property in the means of production, but every socialist
and every communist is in favor of personal property.
"To each according to need" obviously affirms every moral
claim to personal property which corresponds to personal
need.
According to Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, "The
distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition
of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois
property." In this statement, Marx and Engels are using
the expression "property generally" to mean personal
property, and the expression "bourgeois property" to mean
private property. As Marx and Engels go on to say, "When
capital is converted into common property, into the property
of all members of society, personal property is not thereby
transformed into social property." In other words, private
property in capital is converted into social property, but
personal property will remain in force and in effect in a
socialist->communist economy.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"Things are not as bad as they seem. They are worse."
-- Bill Press
Ron Allen
> There are socialists in this very NG who are not opposed to private
> property - ask Ron Allen, for example. Most socialists that I've
> argued with are not opposed to private property. In fact, I've never
> read a socialist that adopts an anti-property stance. If you'd be so
> kind as to provide me with a quote or two - so that I had some proof
> that such idiots exist - I would be grateful.
Ron Allen answers:
In my reading of socialist/communist literature, although
socialists and communists are opposed to private property
in agricultural lands and industrial capitals, they are not
opposed to personal property in residential lands or in
personal belongings.
Jetgraphics wrote:
> People who call themselves Socialist and don't know what it means, are
> uneducated or deceivers.
Ron Allen answers:
People who talk about socialist and communist ideas and
opinions and who do not take into consideration the word
usage and distinctive vocabulary of socialist and communist
writers are uninformed and/or misinformed.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"How many roads must a man walk down before you can call
him a man?"
-- Robert Allen Zimmerman (Bob Dylan)
Ron Allen
> I thought that socialists believed that private property is illegitimate
> if it was not earned though labour. Marx, for example, believed that
> *property was justified* by labour, just as Locke did. In order to argue
> against neo-marxists and other socialists, we must pay strict attention
> to their actual arguments. Can you quote a socialist explicitly espousing
> the belief that private property is criminal if he can't steal it? Do you
> honestly think that *real philosophers* (let's get out of the NG mentality
> for a moment, and back to the literature) would ever defend the belief
> that another's property is only legitimate if he can steal it?? Get real,
> man. There *are* arguments to be had against socialism, but the one
> you've given is simply not one of them, as far as I can tell. If I'm
> wrong about this, please quote some literature that explicitly defends
> such a silly idea as "legitimate only if stealable."
Jetgraphics wrote:
> I read the Communist Manifesto. It's spelled out - if you're capable of
> comprehending written language.
> Quotes from the Communist Manifesto:
> "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the
> single sentence: Abolition of private property."
Ron Allen answers:
But you will please notice that before Marx and Engels say
the words, "Abolition of private property", they stipulate
that there is a correct sense in which to take these words.
Read the paragraphs prior to the above quoted pericope, and
the paragraphs that follow. Only when you've taken into
consideration the context of the text you quote can you
begin to comprehend the meaning and content of the text you
quote above.
Jetgraphics wrote:
> If you can't own private property, you can't own yourself, your labor,
> the fruits of your labor and that which you exchange the fruits of your
> labor for.
Ron Allen answers:
What you're saying in the above pericope is based upon a
significant misreading of the Communist Manifesto.
Jetgraphics wrote:
> Communism / Socialism is another way of saying piracy - the attack upon
> the person and the theft of the property of another. The distribution of
> the booty is a specialty of this organized piracy.
Ron Allen answers:
I agree with Nietzsche, who said that commerce is "really
nothing but a refinement of piratical morality". I suppose
you believe that socialism is a further refinement of the
ethic of piracy.
Jetgraphics wrote:
> "We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the
> right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own
> labor, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal
> freedom, activity and independence."
Ron Allen answers:
Aren't you also guilty of reproaching communists with the
accusation that they desire the abolition of personally
acquired property -- that is, property which is the fruit
of an individual person's own personal or solitary labor?
Jetgraphics wrote:
> "Hard won, self acquired, self earned property!"
> "Do you mean the property of the petty artisan and of the small
> peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form?"
Ron Allen answers:
You will please notice that Marx and Engels are making a
very unambiguous and important distinction between the
property of petty crasftsmen and small farmers, and the
property of the bourgeois class. Marx and Engels are making
it very clear that the property of small artisans and of
peasants is property that has been acquired and earned by
the direct and personal labor of the small proprietor, and
Marx and Engels simply are not denouncing such property.
Jetgraphics wrote:
> "There is no need to abolish that, the development of industry has to
> a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily."
Ron Allen answers:
In other words, even if communism were about abolishing the
property of the small artisan and farmer, that is no longer
a necessary goal, because the development of large-scale
industry has destroyed, and is still destroying, the small
proprietors.
Jetgraphics wrote:
> "Or do you mean modern bourgeois private property?"
> But does wage labor create any property for the laborer? Not a bit.
> It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage
> labor, and which cannot increase except upon the condition of
> begetting a new supply of wage labor for fresh exploitation. Property,
> in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage
> labor."
Ron Allen answers:
You will please notice that Marx and Engels are talking
about "property in its present form", and not about every
form of property. There are possible forms of property
that are unlike property in its present form, and I believe
on can talk about property in a communist form that will be
different from property in a capitalist form.
Jetgraphics wrote:
> There you have it - the communists advocate the end of private property.
Ron Allen answers:
Yes, but if you had quoted a little further on -- the next
two or three paragraphs -- you would have come to a better
understanding of the difference between the private capital
property which will be converted/communized into social and
public property, and the natural personal property which
will not be transformed/socialized into community property
when a socialist/communist system is finally established.
Jetgraphics wrote:
> And even when they dare offer a qualification that they wouldn't
> really attack the property of the little guy they whine that the
> little guy already doesn't own it due to the power of the middle
> class. In other words, when they abolish YOUR private property,
> it's for your own good - and it's all the fault of the 'middle
> class'.
Ron Allen answers:
I have no idea what this paragraph is talking about.
Jetgraphics wrote:
> "In a word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your
> property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend."
Ron Allen answers:
Who are Marx and Engels addressing in the above passage?
I believe the context makes it clear that Marx and Engels
are addressing the capitalists -- i.e., the bourgeoisie.
Jetgraphics wrote:
> They admit they will not rest until they have stolen all your property.
Ron Allen answers:
This is a big misreading of what socialists and communists
are all about.
Jetgraphics wrote:
> "The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish
> countries and nationality."
> So all the people who wish to use the cooperative power represented in
> a nation, [a group of people who share a language, common culture, and
> institutions], to defend their private property from attack, are
> declared fascists, or capitalists, and therefore enemies of the 'left
> wing' Communist and Socialist (pirates).
<><><><><><><><><><><>
"Argument is the worst sort of conversation."
-- Jonathan Swift
Guru George
>| >| Abolishing private property of those who have private property is not
>| >| 'higher' morality - it's theft.
>| >|
>| >| Since land and tools are the foundation of the production of that which
>| >| supports life, taking private land and tools from the private people is an
>| >| attack on their right to life. ...
>
>(G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >Well, considering that there are a lot of people who
>| >don't possess land and tools, what are you recommending?
>
>robpar...@airmail.net (robert parker):
>| I would suggest they acquire land and tools in
>| the same manner as those that have them, not steal
>| them. Most of the wealth today was earned by the
>| people that hold it or their parents. I personly
>| have amassed a estate worth a million dollars, in
>| the last forty years. No inheritance, just working
>| hard and living frugally and investing part of
>| every paycheck.
>
>That's wonderful, but it doesn't answer the question, since
>there's no guarantee that those who have no land or tools will
>be able to inherit them, get them as gifts, work for them,
>sell themselves into slavery, and so forth, and thus it seems
>the system of private property which Jetgraphics believes
>_protects_ a right to life actually contradicts some people's
>right to life. My conclusion is that the association of
>private property with a right to life is idle talk.
A right is not, and cannot pretend to be, a guarantee, it is an
obligation on others, an obligation stronger than a moral obligation:
a potentially enforceable obligation.
In a liberal system of rules we are obliged (in this strong sense) to
allow each other to live freely (to live unmolested,
uninterfered-with, unharmed) - which includes sustaining their lives
by any means that also allow others to live freely. We are not, as a
rule, obliged in the same strong sense to provide others with tools,
land, etc. (though, under certain circumstances we might be _morally_
obliged to do so, and even legally obliged - e.g. in the case of
parents and guardians).
The fact that we are obliged to allow each other to live freely
doesn't imply we are necessarily obliged to give the means of life to
them, since normally they have plenty of other available options for
sustaining their lives (e.g. finding, trade, etc.) that don't
necessitate them interfering with or molesting others (e.g. forcing
others to give them tools, land, etc.)
Human beings don't arrive in this world in a vacuum. Normally, some
sort of way is prepared for them, and they get (or they _ought_ to
get, since their parents are pretty strongly obliged to provide them)
their first tools for living from their parents/guardians, and they go
on from there, hopefully improving their lot, producing stuff others
people find worth trading with them for, etc. Therefore there is no
need to design the social situation in the atomistic way you outline
(just like there's no necessity to drive piles infinitely deep to give
stable foundations for a building).
When situations are abnormal (e.g. parents haven't fulfilled their
obligations properly, person useless at producing things others are
willing to trade for, life gone down the pan, etc.), then and only
then may we be morally (and in certain restricted circumstances
possibly even legally) obliged to help others sustain their lives.
- Guru George
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
The Dao produces the law. Law is what draws the line
between gain and loss, and makes clear the curved and
the straight. He who grasps the Dao, therefore,
produces law and does not venture to transgress it,
establishes law and does not venture to oppose it.
If he is able to align himself, then he will not be
confused when he sees and knows the world.
- The Dao and the Law (from Jing Fa - "The Canon:Law")
ca. 250 BCE
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Caligula the Great
> > >Technically it is not theft, but it is fairly evident
> > >that capitalism is not property-friendly, as witness the
> > >billions of people that lose their livelihoods over time
> > >due to capitalist practices.
> > >
> > As opposed to the billion of people that have
> > built a comfortable life for them selves, using
> > proven capitalist procedures?
>
> No, not "as opposed". _Because_.
>
>
> > Actually the poverty stricken people of this world are
> > those that have never had a capitalist economy.
>
> It depends on where you have your capitalist economy.
> When you have it trampling over you, then you are poor.
> When you ride it while it tramples over others, you can
> build a comfortable life for yourself.
>
>
> > If it weren`t for the charity of capitalist
> > their lot would be worse.
>
> First you take the white out of their eyes, then you
> give them a handout.
>
Alexander, you sound very bitter, you must have lost all your money in the
stock market like the fool you were to put all eggs in one basket.
Alexander Nekvasil
> > It depends on where you have your capitalist economy.
> > When you have it trampling over you, then you are poor.
Dana:
> How about if you back this claim up.
30.000 people die of hunger, per day. That is because
feeding them is not profitable.
Andrew J. Brehm
> "Ron Allen" <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:3D554825...@bellsouth.net...
> : Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> : > Abolishing private property is not "theft" any more than changing any
> : > other law is breaking it.
> :
> : Ron Allen answers:
> : Excellent observation, Andrew!
>
> Which clearly supports the claim that SOCIALISTS are against LAW that
> protects property rights from their thievery. The Socialists think 'law'
> is changeable by the whim of a majority, ignoring the underlying
> difference in forms of law.
I am sorry, I forgot that some laws are simply stated by our
"libertarian" friends and must not be challenged.
I forgot to respect your superiority and privilege when it comes to
setting up the rules under which we live.
My bad.
> Socialists who think that taking private property without consent is made
> MORAL by changing the 'law' are ignorant of their evil intentions or wish
> us to be ignorant of their evil intentions.
Indeed. And if I oppose the DMCA I do because of my evil intentions and
not because I disagree with the law per se.
You are a very wise man "Jetgraphics". May you one day be wise enough to
reveal your identity so we can praise your name.
It was you who reminded two evil socialists that the privilege of being
a "libertarian" outways anybody else's claim to take part if the
law-making process.
You make the laws, we simply obey them. It's a simple and effective
system and I see the light now.
Thank you.
--
Andrew J. Brehm
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
G*rd*n
| > 1. I never lie on Usenet; there is no reason to.
| >
| > 2. I don't attack capitalism; I describe it.
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>:
| Your descriptions are unbelievable. Not only does no one believe
| them, you yourself do not appear to believe them -- retreating
| into epistemological fog when challenged.
Naturally, people who have absolute, unquestioning faith in
liberalism and capitalism -- which may describe the majority
of people on Usenet, and even in the anarchy newswgroups --
will find my descriptions unbelievable. The most I can hope
for is to plant a little skepticism which may flower five
or ten years down the line.
I think what you perceive as epistemological fog is simply a
condition of life. I can't offer the dreamlike, simple clarity
of an absolute faith.
G*rd*n
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >That's wonderful, but it doesn't answer the question, since
| >there's no guarantee that those who have no land or tools will
| >be able to inherit them, get them as gifts, work for them,
| >sell themselves into slavery, and so forth, and thus it seems
| >the system of private property which Jetgraphics believes
| >_protects_ a right to life actually contradicts some people's
| >right to life. My conclusion is that the association of
| >private property with a right to life is idle talk.
Guru George <gurug...@sugarland.clara.co.uk>:
This thread of subthread began when Jetgraphics associated
liberal property rules with a right to live. I had pointed
out before that there was a certain contradiction between
the property rules and a putative right to live, but I don't
think Jetgraphics was in those conversations, so I restated
my view of the contradiction. I think I've done several
times over now; my apologies, but people do keep implying
that they haven't read what I wrote.
As you observe, in actually existing liberal societies, new
people are supposed to obtain livings and initial resources
for making their own livings from their parents and possibly
their relatives, relatives' friends and neighbors. These
are, of course, non-liberal, non-market relations belonging
to familial communism and gift economies. Necessary as they
are, they are outside the realm of liberalism, and, although
they support the liberal, capitalist superstructure, are
somewhat contradictory to it.
In some cases the parents, etc., may fail to provide the
resources. This may especially occur when whole families and
communities are pretty much without those resources, for
whatever reason -- bad luck, crop failures, defeat in war,
political scapegoating and discrimination, and so on. Actually
existing liberal communities have usually perceived such
situations as problems and have dealt with them through what
we usually call Welfare. But Welfare famously violates liberal
property rules, as is so often noticed in these newsgroups.
So does legal enforcement of the aforesaid familial communism
and gift economy.
Where liberal rules have been enforced without the non-liberal
mitigations I've mentioned, widespread suffering and death
have sometimes resulted, as in Ireland and India in examples
which I've given several times, just as we would expect from
the contradiction between a right to live and property rights.
The Irish and Indians who starved to death had no right to
live because they did not have sufficient property to sustain
life. Hence, from both theory and observation I conclude
that liberal property rules are not compatible with a right
to live, and Locke's "life, liberty and property" is a bit
glib as it stands.
Some people have tried to evade the issue by restricting a
right to live to a right not to be explicitly killed, but I
think it's easy to see that, given human needs, a right not
to be explicitly killed is not the same as a right to live.
As I recall, Jetgraphics's exposition began with the need to
appropriate resources in order to make a living; if so he
had already gone beyond a mere right not to be killed.
Woodard R. Springstube
news:aj5m3j$n5k$1...@panix1.panix.com:
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| > 1. I never lie on Usenet; there is no reason to.
>| >
>| > 2. I don't attack capitalism; I describe it.
>
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>:
>| Your descriptions are unbelievable. Not only does no one
>| believe them, you yourself do not appear to believe them
>| -- retreating into epistemological fog when challenged.
>
> Naturally, people who have absolute, unquestioning faith in
> liberalism and capitalism -- which may describe the
> majority of people on Usenet, and even in the anarchy
> newswgroups -- will find my descriptions unbelievable. The
> most I can hope for is to plant a little skepticism which
> may flower five or ten years down the line.
>
Gordon, you, yourself, have demonstrated an absolute,
unquestioning faith in Marxism and/or socialism. Have you ever
even read any good anti-socialism books? I doubt it. Try
Freiderich Hayek, _The Road to Serfdom_ or _The Fatal Conceit:
The Errors of Socialism_. Or, are you the guy who called them
"religious" texts a few months ago? You are afraid to read
those books and others that attack socialism. You are afraid
that the cause to which you have dedicated your life will be
shown to be counterfeit. Oh, here is another book for you:
Conway, _A Farewell To Marx_.
Woodard
William C Colley
"Jetgraphics" <jetgraphics@no_spam_me.com> wrote in message news:<%Eo39.53402$Ru5....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
> "Patrick Crosby" <pcr...@ieee.org> wrote in message
> news:3D4D49D8...@ieee.org...
> > No. You got it backwards. Socialists are against "private ownership of the
> means
> > of production."
>
> Land is a means of production of food. Therefore Socialists are against
> private ownership of land.
> If a farmer (or anyone, for that matter) can't own the land he farms (or
> works upon), he doesn't own the fruits of his labor, because he needs
> PERMISSION of another (and PAY for that permission, too).
>
> If the dirt beneath your feet cannot be owned absolutely, you absolutely
> can't be free.
> That which you produced CAN'T be yours, because the foundation, the land,
> isn't yours to begin with.
>
> That's the subtle truth that Socialists don't want their victims to
> acknowledge - that the ultimate goal is enslavement to the 'State', managed
> by the Socialists, 'for our own good'.
>
> And you can bet the farm, that these benevolent Socialists mean to rule, and
> take a cut of the booty for their efforts.
>
Mr. Jetgraphics, I agree that the ultimate goal of (most) socialists
is to gain power for themselves, and that their rhetoric is used to
try and confuse those they deal with and hide their intentions (I say
most because I do believe there are some "kind-hearted" socialists who
merely have never thought through the logical ramifications of their
beliefs).
However, I am a little puzzled as to your suggestion that "the dirt
beneath your feet", i.e. land, can be owned absolutely. That is, my
understanding is that, at least in the USA, one buys a title which
grants land ownership. Without that title the local (usually
county/state, not federal) government has no duty to protect your
claim to that land. I am not suggesting that the money paid in
property taxes is solely used by the government to provide protection
services, but isn't it true that in the absence of government one
would still (most likely) have to contract with a third party to help
provide communal defense for ones claim of land ownership?
The main problem I see with property taxes as they are currently
enforced in the USA is that they are payable on a yearly basis. This
raises the possiblity that someone who is land rich but cash poor
could be forced off their land or out of their home. To me this is
outragously unjust. But wouldn't such a problem be resolved by having
the option to only pay property taxes when the title is transferred?
> > That's not the same thing, as advocating "stealing other
> > people's property" at all because your home and your car are not part of
> the
> > "means of production."
>
> If Socialists TAKE AWAY another's private property, under deceit or
> coercion, that's THEFT.
> No matter how you sugar coat your prose, Socialism is piracy.
> No Socialist wants to preserve the property rights of another and
> simultaneously advocate collective ownership of another's property.
>
As far as I can tell much of the stratagey involves redefining words,
or claiming that, under their philosophical system, why it isn't theft
at all because it was never owned to begin with. What I don't see (at
least in this thread) is any honest disclosure as to who makes the
decisions. That's what they are hiding, and I suspect it is because
either they full well know there will be a ruling elite (which they
wish to be a part of) or they naively trust in the goodness of
humanity.
>
> > Big oil refineries, however, are. Who really built those
> > oil refineries? The businessmen who wouldn't know which way to turn a
> > screwdriver to tighten or loosen? Yeah, right. (Admittedly, businessmen
> are good
> > at bribing politicians to get special favors, that sort of thing).
> Socialists
> > say the capitalists who boss the workers around and enjoy the fruits of
> their
> > labor are the true thieves. Socialists want workers to justly claim what
> is
> > truly theirs.
>
> I think you are mistaking the concept of "corporations" and "management" and
> presuming that it's capitalism.
>
> A farmer who owns his own farm is enjoying capitalism, the private
> ownership and enjoyment of the profits from that property. He is also
> "management" when he makes decisions and acts accordingly. If you check on
> the definition of dominion and sovereignty, you'll find much the same thing.
>
> But I suspect that you are really angered at the abuses of multinational (or
> ultranational) corporations. A corporation (*Which is an abomination, for
> other reasons) is NOT capitalism, though the English language has been bent
> to associate capital, capitalism, and capitalists. Check out any dictionary,
> and you'll see the difference for yourself.
>
> Most corporations are engaged in usury, limited liability, and other less
> than moral activities in order to survive and prosper their associated
> participants.
>
> An interesting treatise on some of the "other" unpleasant activities of
> corporations is at:
> http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Corporatocracy
>
Thank you for the link, one moment please...
</begin quote>
Some would argue that a real corporocracy can only appear when (and
if) a government makes it legal to bribe politicians. That quickly
makes politicians very corporate-friendly, and makes it easy for
corporations to pass laws as they see fit.
</end quote>
This sums up my objections to corporations Mr. Jetgraphics. But itsn't
the primary problem that POLITICIANS have too much power? Otherwise,
way would corporations be trying to bribe them?
I am in agreement with your positions below. Unfortunately here in the
USA we citizens have a long way to go to regain our sovereignty. Short
of violent revolution, as was successfully accomplished in the 1770's
and unsuccessfully attempted during the 1860's, I see no way to for us
to immediately do so. Therefore I am currently of the opinion that I
must still advocate working within the system to try to elect
politicians who will follow through on their promises to reduce
government power. So however naive it may be, that is why I advocate
supporting the Libertarian Party.
Will they do as promised if elected on a national level? That remains
to be seen.
Thank you for an informative post.
William C Colley
[snip points of agreement here]
James A. Donald
On 11 Aug 2002 07:49:52 -0700, chri...@panola.com (William C
Colley) wrote:
> Mr. Jetgraphics, I agree that the ultimate goal of (most)
> socialists is to gain power for themselves, and that their
> rhetoric is used to try and confuse those they deal with and
> hide their intentions (I say most because I do believe there are
> some "kind-hearted" socialists who merely have never thought
> through the logical ramifications of their beliefs).
It is more complicated than that. A socialist genuinely wants to
do good, but he wants to do good in ways that he expects and
intends will involve himself exercising enormous power over other
people, and himself sacrificing someone else for the greater good,
ways that he expects will involve very llittle sacrifice on his
own part, and a great deal of sacrifice on someone else's part.
which of course is an intent with a suspicious resemblance to
genuine intent to do harm, an intent that necessarily leads to
conduct remarkably similar to that conduct that would result from
an intent to create a world of terror and slavery.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
zTlZNxIUVVAEzMm+67dke24sxyVQ+uVUj+7EbrgQ
2mKrTLp5YYazITgrPc+bfheV5rco3W3x4KiZT7glL
William C Colley
and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote in message news:<1fgm1b7.1glbl7x1yjnlrmN%and...@netneurotic.de>...
> William C Colley <chri...@panola.com> wrote:
>
> > Greetings All,
> >
> >
> > >
> > > It is highly probable that you would never have been concieved without
> > > your parents having access to tools.
> > >
> >
> > Upon re-reading this statement I see it can be interpreted to sound
> > very insulting. That was not my intent. I meant that it is highly
> > probable that your parents wouldn't have existed without prior tools,
> > nor theirs, and so forth. Therefore you would have never been
> > conceived.
> >
> > Nor I for that matter by the same argument.
> >
> > My apologies Mr. Brehm if offense was given.
>
> No offence was taken. I understood what you mean. But I appreciate your
> effort to make your meaning more clear.
You are welcome.
While I may object to your ideas and refute your arguments, I do not
object to you personally.
William C Colley
Andrew J. Brehm
> Greetings All,
>
> and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote in message
news:<1fgm1b7.1glbl7x1yjnlrmN%and...@netneurotic.de>...
> > William C Colley <chri...@panola.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Greetings All,
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It is highly probable that you would never have been concieved without
> > > > your parents having access to tools.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Upon re-reading this statement I see it can be interpreted to sound
> > > very insulting. That was not my intent. I meant that it is highly
> > > probable that your parents wouldn't have existed without prior tools,
> > > nor theirs, and so forth. Therefore you would have never been
> > > conceived.
> > >
> > > Nor I for that matter by the same argument.
> > >
> > > My apologies Mr. Brehm if offense was given.
> >
> > No offence was taken. I understood what you mean. But I appreciate your
> > effort to make your meaning more clear.
>
> You are welcome.
>
> While I may object to your ideas and refute your arguments, I do not
> object to you personally.
>
I will, btw, reply to your other postings soon enough. I haven't
forgotten you.
James A. Donald
On 11 Aug 2002 09:22:30 -0400, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> This thread of subthread began when Jetgraphics associated
> liberal property rules with a right to live. I had pointed out
> before that there was a certain contradiction between the
> property rules and a putative right to live
Don't be silly.
The contradiction only exists in your mind, as has been repeatedly
pointed out.
Your argument is that only a totalitarian regime can guarantee
life against misfortune or foolishnenss. Well as a matter of
fact not even a totalitarian regime can guarantee life against
misfortune and foolishness, and if it could, it would not
The right to life is a right to defend oneself against murderers,
not a right to compell others to keep one alive.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
mkot3ntdyueO3lTIJQIvnsZ0g2ICcwIZWnPcHLVD
2PoADWkpTbtJYBTsRVQ0Nt7TSciF2xXj/gh+HgpWN
James A. Donald
On 11 Aug 2002 01:23:38 +0200, Alexander Nekvasil
> 30.000 people die of hunger, per day. That is because feeding
> them is not profitable.
No. Feeding them would be extremely profitable. They die
because they are captives of socialists like yourself, who refuse
to let their captives be "exploited" by those who would glady buy
their labor and sell them food.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
pru8Lnrbsem6CEAPLzKp+bzXhMHs+wNbS7DzvyO
2S33jZh99t8w6YHpxMYaSq70/1/uIc7ceFjESzUrB
Ron Allen
> In fact everyone is born owning nothing.
Ron Allen wrote:
> Are there no birthrights?
G*rd*n wrote:
> What are you recommending?
Ron Allen answers:
I'm recommending nothing with what I wrote above; but I am
suggesting that, in the parlance of rights, we do possess
some birthrights -- i.e., rights that every person has by
birth or at birth. And these birthrights include some
minimal property rights, such as the right to life and the
right to care and protection.
I am supposing that we own the rights we enjoy.
Constantinople wrote:
> Peaceful acquisition, by gift or trade. Not by theft or robbery.
Ron Allen wrote:
> This is also the kind of free-sharing exchange that is recommended by
> socialists and communists.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> Ron,
> I am a selfish SOB.
Ron Allen answers:
I am also selfish, and there is nothing wrong with being a
selfish sumbitch. I believe that if and when your family
or friends ask for you help, you will more often than not
do whatever you can do. You will bitch, beef, and buck at
having to help, but you will do what little you can do, and
that's cool enough. I suppose that a lot of us are into
volunteerism every now and then. We do what we can, when
we can. And that's good enough. Most of us are overworked
to the point that it's a tall order just to do volunteer
work.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> If I work and earn a salary, then I want to enjoy the fruits of that
> salary--not give it away.
Ron Allen answers:
I cannot see why you believe socialists/communists would
want to take your salary from you.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> Therefore, I don't give money to street bums (though I will buy them a
> hamburger or submarine sandwich--but you would be surprized at how many
> don't want the food, just cash).
Ron Allen answers:
I've been there. I took a street bum to a hamburger joint,
and after I got him the hamburger, fries, and soda, he did
not eat much of it, and then asked me for cash. I had seen
enough drunks sleeping on the streets that I told him I'd
be doing nothing for him if I gave him cash. I told him
he would waste my money on idiot juice. He thanked me, and
walked away. This happened about 12 years ago, and I have
very rarely given money to a bum since then.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> I don't feel obligated to pay to educate children that I didn't father.
Ron Allen answers:
Children did not choose to be fathered. I believe that we
all have a social and moral responsibility to do our part,
what little we can do, to help and take care of babies and
children. I suppose I have to believe this, since I was
raised in an orphanage. The Presbyterian Church took very
good care of me from 2 months of age until I decided to
discontinue my seminary education. I am no longer an active
member of a church, and I'm no longer a believer, but I do
appreciate what was done for me at Thornwell, and I call it
my home.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> I don't feel obligated to help, beyond a $5-20 donation, those who have
> been caught in disasters unless they are related to me.
Ron Allen answers:
Usually, in such times, enough people give small donations,
and that does help. Of course, here in the United States,
we have funds which are established for the stated purpose
of helping people during some emergency. We give donations
all through the year, so that we do not need to give a lot
of money when an emergency does happen.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> Now, how is a socialist system going to change those attitudes?
Ron Allen answers:
I see no reason to believe that socialism/communism will
need to change our normal outlook or our natural habits.
I believe you do what you can do, and when you can do it.
I assume that a socialist/communist commonwealth will have
enough emergency inventories amassed, and enough emergency
enlistees on call, so that when and where a crisis happens
there will be plenty of trained helpers on the way. In a
socialist/communist commonwealth, the community will be
prepared to handle an emergency crisis. There will be
resources (equipment, supplies, and provisions) set aside,
stockpiled, and placed in reserve, and there will be crews
of recruits who will be prepared to do whatever needs to
be done.
People do whatever they can manage to do in such times of
disaster. Even the most selfish sumbitch will do the best
they can when a fellow human being is in trouble.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> I'll tell you how: I will be forced into a brutal "re-education" camp
> or given a choice: change or die.
Ron Allen answers:
I do not believe you need to be re-educated. I believe you
are a much better person than you believe you are. When a
tragedy happens, when your mettle is tested, I believe you
will do very good. You will perhaps surprise yopurself,
but you'll not surprise me. Your selfless generosity will
not amaze your family or your friends, because they can see
who you really are, what kind of person you can be when the
times call for it.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> The bottom line of socialism is that people are expected to care about
> total strangers as much as they care about their own wives, children,
> families, and friends. People don't operate that way. And, the only
> way to get people to operate that way is with a gun to the head or a
> bayonet to the back.
Ron Allen answers:
I do not believe that socialism/communism have such an
unrealistic expectation, or that such a social organization
will demand or require such idealistic and starry-eyed
behavior.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> When I want something, I trade some of my money to a merchant for what
> I want. He gets the money that he values more than unsold inventory
> and I get the camera, lens, stereo that I value more than the money
> that I gave the merchant. It is a win-win situation. It is the same
> with employment. When I accept a job, I give up the free time that I
> value less in order to get something that I value more--the salary.
Ron Allen answers:
I can tell you do not value free time. People do a lot of
reading and thinking during their free time, and you simply
do not evidence taking or making the time to read and think
about things. I can see that you're not a practiced reader,
and I suppose you're not a practiced listener, because you
seem unable or unwilling to comprehend ideas and opinions
you are against. You do not wish to become familiar with
ideas and opinions you dislike. All you want to do is show
us how good you are at being disrespectful of other people's
thoughts. You may be a teacher, but you've not been taught.
I hope your students do not read your cranky messages.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> My employer gives up the money that he values less to get something
> that he values more--my skills and labor applied to his behalf. Of
> course, the fact that I earn by bread and cheese by teaching, a
> profession that I love intensely, is a bonus. I also spent nearly
> ten years as a blue-collar worker in a chemical plant--a job that I
> didn't like--in order to have a nice place to live and some toys--and
> the opportunity to save some money to further my education so that I
> could get out of that job. The funny thing is, if I had stayed a blue-
> collar worker, then I would likely have more money in the bank today.
> The company ended up going public at $19 and selling for $67 a share
> eight months later. I know some people who made out like bandits
> through the thrift plan. One blue collar worker retired quite early,
> but he bought as much stock as possible before they went public.
Ron Allen answers:
I hope the retired worker has not been too hard hit by
today's bear market.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> Now, here is another point. If I had to make PVC resin without the
> capital investment of the shareholders, I would never have made a
> single gram. I made the resin and got paid, or got paid for painting
> the plant when we were shut down 2 of every 4 weeks due to low sales
> regardless of whether or not the owners of the plant made a ton of
> money or lost their shirts. They bore the risks of the capital
> investment while their workers where somewhat insulated from those
> risks--at least in the short-term. In the long-term, if the owners
> hadn't made some money, then the company would have gone bankrupt.
> They deserved some profit for taking the risk. Further, workers could
> get stock in the company even before it went public. They had a thrift
> plan. Worker contributions could be invested in any number of mutual
> funds (including the well-known Magellan Fund and funds that invested
> in US Treasury securities for the more risk-averse) while the company
> would match worker contributions dollar for dollar, up to 6% of the
> base salary, and put the money in company stock. In essence, the workers
> also became capitalists on a small scale. Why, then, did not the
> workers buy the plant? The answer is simple: The combined resources of
> all the workers were not sufficient to buy the plant. Further, buying
> the plant would then have exposed the workers to risks of bankruptcy
> that they were unwilling to bear. That is why capital deserves a reward,
> along with the workers and the owners of land resources. But, I don't
> really expect you to understand this. You are as committed to socialism
> as Osama Bin Laden is to his interpretation of the Koran.
Ron Allen answers:
I do understand what you're saying above, and that is
exactly why I have always taken every care to point out
that I'm against the system of capitalism, while I am not
refusing to acknowledge the praiseworthy labors of many
capitalists. Although large proprietors do exploit labor,
it is also just as true that proprietors are exploited by
the big capitalist banks.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"People seem to hear best what you do not say."
-- Ron Allen
Ron Allen
> In fact everyone is born owning nothing.
Ron Allen wrote:
> Are there no birthrights?
Constantinople wrote:
> I wouldn't say that the baby owns that property, yet. Maybe I should
> have said, "aside from gifts, everyone is born owning nothing."
Ron Allen answers:
Does the baby own its self?
The words "owe" and "own" come from the very same root
meaning, and they both imply some kind of possessing.
What does a baby own? What does a baby owe? What does
a baby possess?
I suppose that a baby has the rights of citizenship in
potentia, the way that an acorn has the properties of an
oak tree in potentia. A baby is a citizen in potentia,
just as an acorn nut is an oak tree in potentia et
in futuro.
G*rd*n wrote:
> What are you recommending?
Constantinople wrote:
> Peaceful acquisition, by gift or trade. Not by theft or robbery.
Ron Allen wrote:
> This is also the kind of free-sharing exchange that is recommended by
> socialists and communists.
Constantinople wrote:
> If that were all they recommended, there would be no problem with
> socialism. But they don't leave off at that. They go on to classify
> some exchanges as "unfree", and to recommend measures to make them
> "free" (such as democratically redistributing wealth).
Ron Allen answers:
Don't those who endorse capitalism also classify some forms
of exchange activity as "unfree"? Perhaps those who desire
socialism differ in what they classify as unfree exchange,
but ideological capitalist and ideological communist are
both wont to classify some exchange behavior as being
unfree.
I'm not sure why you believe that socialism is about the
redistribution of wealth. In a socialist context, wealth
will have been distributed according to need and utility,
and so there would be no need to redistribute wealth.
But, taking for granted what you think socialism is about
(i.e., redistributing wealth), why is a non-democratic
distribution of wealth so much better than a democratic
re/distribution of wealth?
<><><><><><><><><><>
"The people came to realize that wealth is not the fruit of
labor but the result of organized protected robbery."
-- Frantz Omar Fanon
Ron Allen
> Social justice? Don't make me laugh...
> Socialists (& Communists) are opposed to private property, ergo, they
> are interested in stealing other people's private property.
> Abolishing private property of those who have private property is not
> 'higher' morality - it's theft.
> Since land and tools are the foundation of the production of that which
> supports life, taking private land and tools from the private people is
> an attack on their right to life. In a word, Socialists are organized
> predators.
Ron Allen answers:
If land and tools are the material foundation of the
production of life-supporting goods, then what's so good
about private land ownership that excludes a lot of people
from the very land they need in order to to produce what
they need? And why isn't it an attack on the right to life
if all the property that has been privatized is also all
the productive land available, so that those who are left
without property in land are also left without the material
means of production they need in order to provide for
themselves?
Jetgraphics wrote:
> Predators survive at the expense of another's survival. Predatory
> behavior harms innocent people.
> Harmless productive behavior in support of one's life is moral. But
> to a predator, anyone who defends their right to life from attack by
> a predator, is an enemy - of predators.
> Socialists call the owners of private property: "thieves"! Socialists
> call capitalists: "the enemy". Socialists denounce the owner who rents
> his private property, for a fee. It doesn't matter what that private
> property is, labor, apartment, or transportation. The Socialist feels
> that any private profit is criminal when HE can't steal it.
> A farmer who owns his own farm is a capitalist.
Ron Allen answers:
???
Jetgraphics wrote:
> A farmer who rents it from another is a tenant.
Ron Allen answers:
Granted.
Jetgraphics wrote:
> Why do socialists think it's moral to take away the farm from a
> capitalist farmer?
Ron Allen answers:
Socialists do not frame this political issue in the language
of morality. As a socialist/communist, I believe that a
democratic community has eminent domain, and that a fair and
just compensation ought to be given to the former proprietor
of land confiscated by a democratic community.
Also, keep in mind, that in capitalism private property in
land and/or capital excludes those who are propertyless from
the means of production they need in order to be able to
labor and provide for themselves. But in socialism and in
communism public property both in agricultural land and in
industrial capital includes every member of the association
or community, so that no person is excluded or expelled from
free access to the means of production, and no person is
excluded or evicted from every opportunity to be fully
engaged and employed in value-producing labor, according to
the personal abilities and needs of each and every citizen.
Jetgraphics wrote:
> Why do socialists think it's moral for the Socialist state to rent it
> to a tenant?
Ron Allen answers:
Most socialist are libertarian and anarchist, and disagree
with politics of authoritarian state socialists.
Jetgraphics wrote:
> It is an axiom that one needs exclusive occupation of a volume to survive.
> And the fruits of the land and labor support life. Creating useful surplus
> goods and services, and trading them, is what prosperity is all about. Those
> who would take the land, the housing, and the fruits of another's labor are
> thieves, and proscribed as evil doers.
Ron Allen answers:
Exclusive occupation of agricultural land, for example, is
not an axiomatic given, if by that you mean to say that it
is self-evident and unquestioned. A private owner of
large-scale agricultural fields does not usually work those
fields alone, and so the notion of "exclusive occupation"
becomes a contestable notion. So also, a factory proprietor
is not the only person to occupy a factory during its hours
of operation. Your assumptions are rendered dubious by the
facts.
Jetgraphics wrote:
> All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy and
> policy requires consent.
Ron Allen answers:
Yes, and even among criminals there are rules that protect
stolen property, and these rules serve to preserve the
peace. The property laws in a capitalist society are made
to preserve the peace, but these laws do not account for
property, and do not justify existing property. Laws only
protect property rights; laws do not prove the right of
property. Laws protect property; but laws to do stipulate
the right way to actually go about securing property.
Jetgraphics wrote:
> Socialists hate law that protects the property rights of the people.
> By denying private property rights, they deny law. In place of law,
> Socialists want socialist policy to justify taking the property of
> another.
Ron Allen answers:
Unlike bourgeois philosophers, socialist philosophers ask
the fundamental and foundational question: What justifies
property? This was John Locke's principal question. And
before Locke, this primary question was debated in Roman
times by the Sabinians and the Proculians, with Locke and
the modern socialists siding with the Proculian jurists of
classical times.
Jetgraphics wrote:
> Socialists who seek to abolish private property do not wish to do
> productive labor themselves. They aren't seeking to produce more useful
> goods and services, nor trade. They are behaviorial parasites on the
> body politic. They want to rule the productive people for their own
> benefit. Socialists are predators who want the productive to be grateful,
> and reward the Socialists for ruling them with such 'great wisdom'.
Ron Allen answers:
Of course, we're often told that the wage workers ought to
appreciate the great wisdom of their proprietarian masters.
Jetgraphics wrote:
> If Socialists were altruists, seeking to serve mankind for no reward,
> there are plenty of charitable organizations waiting for their hard
> work. But Socialists want to be handsomely paid for 'their work'. They
> want a cut of the booty stolen from the productive masses under their
> control.
> True Social Justice is the defense against Socialism in all its forms.
> Of course, all predators, when caught, will disavow their predatory
> nature. But it's foolish to tolerate a predator. It's not merciful to
> their next victim.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"There are some days when it is hard to catch up with the
losers!"
-- Robert Orpen
Ron Allen
> You are a very wise man "Jetgraphics". May you one day be wise enough
> to reveal your identity so we can praise your name.
Ron Allen answers:
I think "Jetgraphics" is quite descriptive of this writers
style and substance -- producing a lot of hot air in some
very graphic ways.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"Don't think that everyone will agree with you, even if you
are a king."
-- Catalan proverb
Ron Allen
> Gordon, you, yourself, have demonstrated an absolute, unquestioning
> faith in Marxism and/or socialism. Have you ever even read any good
> anti-socialism books? I doubt it. Try Freiderich Hayek, _The Road
> to Serfdom_ or _The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism_. Or,
> are you the guy who called them "religious" texts a few months ago?
> You are afraid to read those books and others that attack socialism.
> You are afraid that the cause to which you have dedicated your life
> will be shown to be counterfeit. Oh, here is another book for you:
> Conway, _A Farewell To Marx_.
Ron Allen answers:
I have read Hayek's ROAD, but not his FATAL CONCEIT, which
I really do want to read. I like Hayek a lot, even though
I do have some disagreements with him. He does have some
things in common with Marx, for example. And his critique
of socialism is also a valid critique of some vulgar ideas
about capitalism which are exhibited by so many defenders
of capitalism in these newsgroups.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"So long as we live among men, let us cherish humanity."
-- Lucius Annaeus Seneca
James A. Donald
Ron Allen answers:
> If land and tools are the material foundation of the production
> of life-supporting goods, then what's so good about private land
> ownership that excludes a lot of people from the very land they
> need in order to to produce what they need?
Without private ownership, everyone is excluded except the rulers.
With many alternate owners of land, those who do not own land are
not powerless. With a single owner, the state, owning all land,
everyone is powerless.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
jylbwVDODqnxqCAKkWHxmDHk0ivo5ZPriDb42YBl
2BGndci8Q4M+QYT46jaBJwAE+Ygpdg6dRY+mldKfW
Ron Allen
> If land and tools are the material foundation of the production of
> life-supporting goods, then what's so good about private land ownership
> that excludes a lot of people from the very land they need in order to
James A. Donald wrote:
> Without private ownership, everyone is excluded except the rulers.
Ron Allen answers:
Without the economic power private property procures for
the class of proprietarians there is not material foundation
for their being in possession of political power.
Where do rulers come from in an anarcho-communist society?
James A. Donald wrote:
> With many alternate owners of land, those who do not own land are
> not powerless. With a single owner, the state, owning all land,
> everyone is powerless.
Ron Allen answers:
What state? I'm not advocating statism; I'm advocating
communism. I'm advocating social and democratic ownership
of the means of production, and of the means of government.
I advocate self government, not state government.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"Tell us your phobias and we will tell you what you are
afraid of."
-- Robert Benchley
James A. Donald
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 15:58:54 -0400, Ron Allen
<ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Where do rulers come from in an anarcho-communist society?
You use the word "anarcho" as if it was some kind of sauce that
you can spray over anything you please.
Communism cannot be anarchic, it must be totalitarian. Without
property rights to separate one man's plan from another man's
plan, there can only be one plan for all, which requires terror.
Communists need torture and murder in order to get toilet paper in
toilets and light bulbs in sockets.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
FZGM2SApVNjQlU/IXUfBn4r0Ouf0oRgu4ZvNeDlA
2M+vhGVt+nMVMFAqdI0k+uoqN4WJrCigcETxxr+oU
Scott Higdon
Ron Allen <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> > If I work and earn a salary, then I want to enjoy the fruits of that
> > salary--not give it away.
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> I cannot see why you believe socialists/communists would
> want to take your salary from you.
>
>
You got that one right, Ron. If they got their way, nobody would get a
salary to begin with.
--
Scott
Scott Higdon
Ron Allen <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure why you believe that socialism is about the
> redistribution of wealth. In a socialist context, wealth
> will have been distributed according to need and utility,
> and so there would be no need to redistribute wealth.
>
Are you paying attention to what you write, or do you just mindlessly
type things you've typed 100 times before?
First you say that you wonder why people believe socialism is about
wealth redistribution, then you say wealth(in a socialist context) would
be distributed according to need. Notice a common word?
If you replace captialism with socialism, there will be a lot of wealth
in the hands of people that you intend to take from them and give to
people who have less wealth. You just admitted it, and you wonder why we
say it's about redistribution?
I grant you that eventually, if socialism lasts long enough, there won't
be any wealth left to distribute at all, so the redistribution happens
mostly at the beginning.
> But, taking for granted what you think socialism is about
> (i.e., redistributing wealth), why is a non-democratic
> distribution of wealth so much better than a democratic
> re/distribution of wealth?
>
>
> <><><><><><><><><><>
>
> "The people came to realize that wealth is not the fruit of
> labor but the result of organized protected robbery."
> -- Frantz Omar Fanon
>
--
Scott
G*rd*n
| --
| On 11 Aug 2002 09:22:30 -0400, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| > This thread of subthread began when Jetgraphics associated
| > liberal property rules with a right to live. I had pointed out
| > before that there was a certain contradiction between the
| > property rules and a putative right to live
|
| Don't be silly.
|
| The contradiction only exists in your mind, as has been repeatedly
| pointed out.
|
| Your argument is that only a totalitarian regime can guarantee
| life against misfortune or foolishnenss. Well as a matter of
| fact not even a totalitarian regime can guarantee life against
| misfortune and foolishness, and if it could, it would not
|
| The right to life is a right to defend oneself against murderers,
| not a right to compell others to keep one alive.
In this particular thread, I have not only _not_ recommended
a totalitarian regime as a remedy for guaranteeing life
against misfortune and foolishness, I have not recommended
any remedy at all. I was simply pointing to the difference
or contradiction between certain ideas which had been
associated.
G*rd*n
| > Mr. Jetgraphics, I agree that the ultimate goal of (most)
| > socialists is to gain power for themselves, and that their
| > rhetoric is used to try and confuse those they deal with and
| > hide their intentions (I say most because I do believe there are
| > some "kind-hearted" socialists who merely have never thought
| > through the logical ramifications of their beliefs).
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>:
| It is more complicated than that. A socialist genuinely wants to
| do good....
Socialism is very seldom about doing good. It's about
freedom and power.
Ron Allen
> If I work and earn a salary, then I want to enjoy the fruits of that
> salary--not give it away.
Ron Allen wrote:
> I cannot see why you believe socialists/communists would want to take
> your salary from you.
Scott Higdon wrote:
> You got that one right, Ron. If they got their way, nobody would get a
> salary to begin with.
Ron Allen answers:
Touché!
<><><><><><><><><><>
"The absolute truth, in the next-to-the-last-case, is a
lie."
-- Arthur Koestler