How a Libertarian Capitalist Became a Libertarian Socialist
Dan Clore
How a Libertarian Capitalist Became a Libertarian Socialist
by Chris Wilson
Part of the "Critiques of Libertarianism" site.
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
Last updated 07/10/00.
A couple years back when I was working toward a philosophy major
in college, I wrote a rebuttal the section of The Anarchist FAQ
that covers anarcho-capitalism. I removed the rebuttal from the
web because I didn't have the time or inclination to continue to
maintain it or expand upon it. Three years later, I've come to
find myself disagreeing with my old rebuttals and agreeing with
the FAQ. What follows is my story.
I began my tenure as a right-wing libertarian by reading Ayn Rand,
who dissuaded me from the rather muddled left-wing sympathies I
held at the time. I was only a Rand enthusiast for a short time,
however, and I soon developed an interest in the "more reasonable"
free-market thinkers, such as von Mises, Nozick, Hayek, David
Friedman, etc. I was an ardent supporter of unimpeded and
"stateless" capitalism for the course of almost 3 years, and
developed and/or adopted every possible philosophical and economic
justification that can be conceived of for its defense. Before I
graduated college, however, I expelled my belief that one can
claim private property rights upon land. I advocated a labor
theory of property, and considering that land is not a produced
good, I found that it wasn't defensible according to the principles
I advocated. I concluded that one who hoards land is placing a
restriction upon the liberty of others to use it or to travel by
way of it without justification, and hence the claimant should
compensate them by paying a land value tax to earn exclusive
rights to it.
Despite my new Georgist land-socialist views, I still advocated a
capitalist economic system with respect to produced goods. However,
I did become much more critical of corporations, and I became upset
with other libertarians for their lack of focus upon the injustices
perpetrated by corporations. I wanted to abolish corporate charters,
subsidies, intellectual property, regulatory privileges, land grants,
etc., as I considered them violations of liberty. If you press a
right-libertarian about the privileges corporations receive, they
usually say, "Oh, well I'm against those", but they hardly ever take
the initiative in directing any criticism against them. More often
than not, they praise the alleged "virtues" of corporations, while
focusing upon how the government violates these corporations
"rights".
When I first became an "anarcho-capitalist", I thought corporate
abuses could be avoided in an economic realm in which corporations
didn't enjoy as many regulatory privileges. I initially liked all
the "dot coms" and "ecommerce" companies -- I considered the
Internet industry to be one in which free market principles were
respected, contrary to so many other industries. However, in the
past year, I've seen all these companies become just as ruthless
as any multinational. I thought that all of the "dot coms" were
small as a result of the industry functioning according to genuine
free market principles, but in reality, they were just small *to
begin with*. Most of them are small no longer. Furthermore, the
more prosperous of these companies are now seeking to benefit
from state privilege, which is evident in the many intellectual
property lawsuits that are currently pending in the ecommerce
industry.
When I was discovering this (and becoming a hardcore Linux user
in the process), I was working as a customer service representative
in a large and very well known software corporation (not Microsoft).
The act of *working* instead of going to school gave me a new
respect for organized labor movements. Additionally, it gave me an
appreciation for the extent to which corporations screw their
customers. As I spent the next six months working for this
producer of buggy software, I came to the realization that my job
as a "customer service" rep involved little more than developing
clever rationalizations to defend this company's fraudulent
activities. Most other reps bought into the company's
rationalizations -- most of the employees, including the
supervisors, sincerely believed that the company provided "world
class" service to the customers, which couldn't be further from
the truth. I'm ashamed to say that I bought into *some* of the
propaganda as a result of searching for ways to pacify irate
customers. And because of the position that we were in -- that
is, being constantly screamed at and criticized for policies
beyond our control -- it was impossible to refrain from becoming
extremely resentful towards rightfully upset customers. Finally,
the company adopted some nasty new policies which were so obviously
indefensible that I had to end my relationship with the company on
general principle. I left completely disillusioned with corporate
culture.
Although I favored free markets, I did so because I considered them
to be necessitated by the principles that I held. Principles always
came *first* for me -- not economics. However, around the time that
I quit working at the software corporation, it finally truly sank
in that businesses couldn't *care less* about principles. The
questions "Is it right?" or "Is it just?" do not even enter the
minds of the decision makers of capitalist businesses -- such
questions are beside the point in their eyes. Although I was a
right-libertarian at the time, I held my views because I genuinely
believed that they followed logically from my beloved principle of
self-government. Even though I knew that *many* capitalist
businesses were completely lacking in principles, I did ignorantly
believe that this was only true of large government aided
corporations. It was very disheartening to learn over time that
this fact applies to *most* businesses, regardless of whether or
not they happen to be corporations that profit from state favor.
If they don't actually receive favors from the state, then it is
typically their *aim* to receive them.
A week after I quit the software company, I got lucky and snagged
a job providing tech support at a local ISP. I thought to myself
that this company, being a local business, would be fundamentally
different. While I do greatly prefer working for the ISP to working
for the mega-software giant, it quickly became obvious to me that
the motivations and principles (or lack thereof) of the president
and major shareholders of the ISP are no different from that of any
major corporation. Although the ISP is relatively small as of now,
it doesn't aim to remain as such for very long. I will say that an
ISP's expansion is generally not favored by employees, as it forces
us to take responsibility for customer issues that we're in no
position to fix (as was so common with the software company).
Furthermore, those who run the company still think of the employees
as a cost to be minimized. The rule is to hire as few as possible,
pay them as little as possible, and make them work as often as
possible. Since starting with the company, I've taken on many more
responsibilities than just tech support, but my wages haven't risen.
Despite the technical nature of my job, the workers at the nearby
grocery store make more than I, as they're unionized and I'm not.
My experience in the work world forced me to seriously reconsider my
advocacy of capitalism in any form. As I was still very committed to
libertarian principles, I began to study the "socialist anarchists".
(I put "socialist anarchist" in quotes, as I now consider such a term
to be a redundancy -- anarchists are necessarily socialists.) I forced
myself to consider the fundamental disagreement that separates Bakunin,
Kropotkin, and Malatesta from Rand, von Mises, and Friedman. My answer
to myself: The advocates of capitalism believe that one can sign away
or sell off one's liberty, whereas anarchists do not. As a right-wing
libertarian capitalist, I was of the opinion that one could enter into
a morally binding agreement in which one sacrifices one's liberty in
exchange for a wage. My position was that a worker would be committing
fraud against the employer if he attempted to retain rights to the
full product of his labor. My argument was that if an employer has a
"legitimate" prior claim upon the capital being used, then he has the
right to dictate its terms of use. The laborer doesn't have the right
to anything more than what the capitalist agrees to give, just as the
capitalist doesn't have the right to take anything more than what the
laborer agrees to give. (Of course, I didn't realize in my early
"anarcho-capitalist" days that capitalists almost always demand more
than what the worker initially agrees to give.)
My current position is that one cannot be ethically bound by agreements
that restrict one's liberty to be self-governing. It has always been my
view that one cannot be bound by an agreement to be a slave. Although
one can enter into a contract that mandates one to serve as a slave,
one should be considered free to cease honoring that contract at any
time. However, I hadn't been applying this principle to all forms of
domination -- I only applied it to full-time chattel slavery, not to
wage slavery, domestic tyranny, etc. When I was working out my views
regarding this issue, I decided to simplify my decision by subjecting
myself to a thought experiment: Jones is a individual who has zero
access to capital, which excludes him from being self-employed. He
must must find somebody who will share access to capital if he is to
continue to eat. Fortunately, Smith has plenty of capital, and is
willing to share it -- under certain conditions of course. Smith says
to Jones that he can use Smith's capital to produce, *provided* that
Jones engages in 90% of the productivity while Smith engages in 10%.
Also, Jones will only receive 10% of the revenues despite all of his
hard work, while Smith gets to keep 90% for his hoggish self. Jones
agrees to these conditions because he has no other option. Is Jones
morally bound by his agreement to allow Smith to keep 8 in 9 parts
of what what Jones produces? The capitalist, of course, answers,
"Yes", and I once would have given the same answer, even though I
knew intuitively that such an arrangement would be grossly unfair.
My current answer is "No" -- this relationship between Smith and
Jones is inherently exploitive, and Jones is entitled to much better.
That completed my conversion to real anarchism, which is to say
*libertarian socialism*. The evolutionary process was slow -- it
didn't happen all in one night. I continued to consider myself an
individualist anarchist for awhile, and remained more attracted to
the ideas of Tucker and Proudhon than any of the social anarchists.
But as I read more Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, and Rocker and
studied the Spanish Civil War and Russian Revolution, I concluded
that social anarchism was a better alternative. Unlike the
individualist or mutualist varieties of anarchism, anarcho-communism
doesn't provide an avenue for capitalism to reestablish itself and
it has had partial revolutionary success in the past histories of
countries such as Spain and the Ukraine. What initially turned me
off to social anarchism is the fact that many of its advocates don't
address the prospect of what's commonly called the "tyranny of the
majority", which I think is a valid concern. It cannot be emphasized
enough that under anarchism, nobody would be forced to join a
commune or a federation. If one wishes to be free to work
independently of a democratic collective, this freedom would be
acknowledged and respected, provided that one doesn't attempt to
hoard more resources than one uses or employ people for a wage.
Granted, anarchists wouldn't *ban* wage labor, but "agreements"
in which workers sign away their liberty would not be enforced.
Since making the transition from right-wing to left-wing libertarianism,
I've discovered that factionalism and sectarianism is just as pervasive
here as it was there, if not more so. Technology is a good example of
an issue that divides the anarchist movement. On one hand, there are
the anarcho-primitivist luddites who eschew all forms of complex
technology and wish to return to a hunter-gather society, and on the
other, there are the anarchists who feel that technology can be
beneficial and usually is if its development is directed by workers
themselves in a manner that is accountable to the communities it
affects. I count myself among the latter -- I have no desire to give
up electricity, plumbing, refrigeration, etc., nor do most people.
Plus, I don't believe that ecological destruction or mind-numbing
labor is a consequence of technology in itself -- these undesirable
things are caused by *capitalism*, by technology being developed for
the sake of furthering the interests of a small oligarchy of elite
individuals. I tend not to associate with the primitivists, as their
vision is far too conflicting with mine. What makes us similar,
however, is the fact that we oppose all forms of domination, period.
Although we may disagree regarding what does or doesn't constitute
a form of domination, we disagree even more with the right-wing
libertarian who holds that domination can become legitimate and
even a good thing if it is "voluntarily" consented to.
http://www.egroups.com/group/smygo
--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord Weÿrdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
"Tho-ag in Zhi-gyu slept seven Khorlo. Zodmanas
zhiba. All Nyug bosom. Konch-hog not; Thyan-Kam
not; Lha-Chohan not; Tenbrel Chugnyi not;
Dharmakaya ceased; Tgenchang not become; Barnang
and Ssa in Ngovonyidj; alone Tho-og Yinsin in
night of Sun-chan and Yong-grub (Parinishpanna),
&c., &c.,"
-- The Book of Dzyan.
Stvartak
misnomer. What you are may be very noble and good, but to co-opt the word
"libertarian" is to deny the fundamental basis of socialism. Being socially
liberal doesn't make you a libertarian. You must be pro-freedom in economic
matters as well.
stvartak
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
news:399ED0...@columbia-center.org...
Matt
cl...@columbia-center.org wrote:
[quoting Chris Wilson]
> A couple years back when I was working toward a philosophy major
> in college, I wrote a rebuttal the section of The Anarchist FAQ
> that covers anarcho-capitalism. I removed the rebuttal from the
> web because I didn't have the time or inclination to continue to
> maintain it or expand upon it. Three years later, I've come to
> find myself disagreeing with my old rebuttals and agreeing with
> the FAQ. What follows is my story.
Well, that sure is strange.
A number of factors influenced me to become an anarcho-capitalist,
Chis's rebuttal to that FAQ being, I think, one of them.
Chris's arguments were standard anarcho-capitalist, so I don't think
they were more persausive than usual, but as I recall Chris's opposition
was so pathetic that the contrast made me embarassed to have picked the
side I did.
I couldn't find Chris's rebuttal to the FAQ online, but here is an
anarcho-socialist response to it which contains some of his writing:
http://203.57.122.1/www/afaq/replies.html
I read this debate I guess more than a year ago, and I remember cracking
up at how ridiculously silly the socialist arguments were. It's very
surprising to me that he would accept them. But then again, I probably
surprised a few people last year.
I'll discuss a few of Chris's arguments, though it would be nice if he
showed up here himself.
> Despite my new Georgist land-socialist views, I still advocated a
> capitalist economic system with respect to produced goods. However,
> I did become much more critical of corporations, and I became upset
> with other libertarians for their lack of focus upon the injustices
> perpetrated by corporations. I wanted to abolish corporate charters,
> subsidies, intellectual property, regulatory privileges, land grants,
> etc., as I considered them violations of liberty.
Most of these are anti-libertarian anyway, though intellectual property
is debatable. Of course state-sanctioned corporate charters should go.
It's not yet clear to me if they would arise out of voluntary contracts.
It seems, however, anti-libertarian to oppose corporate charters in
existence now, because the state monopolizes the legal system.
Corporations can't be blamed for that.
> If you press a
> right-libertarian about the privileges corporations receive, they
> usually say, "Oh, well I'm against those", but they hardly ever take
> the initiative in directing any criticism against them.
Perhaps that is a valid criticism. I have a few explanations (not
necessarily excuses):
1. The state is more threatening to liberty than any corporation, so
there may be an inclination among libertarians to focus on the state.
2. We can trace many abuses of corporations to state privileges, which
provides more reason to focus on the state as the source of problems.
3. Many other people criticize corporations to rationalize taking away
liberty. Hence libertarians may find it difficult to align or associate
themselves with those people. On this point I think we can make a valid
criticism of libertarians: libertarians need to make the effort to
condemn corporations where condemnation is warranted.
> When I first became an "anarcho-capitalist", I thought corporate
> abuses could be avoided in an economic realm in which corporations
> didn't enjoy as many regulatory privileges.
Hasn't Chris heard the expression "Utopia is not an option"?
It's naive to think we can avoid abuses of one sort or another in any
system. People are not perfect. Some are even wicked. The question is
not whether there will be abuses, but what institutions will be more or
less prone to abuses.
> I initially liked all
> the "dot coms" and "ecommerce" companies -- I considered the
> Internet industry to be one in which free market principles were
> respected, contrary to so many other industries.
I think Chris is missing a real advantage of the market--it doesn't
depend on ideology.
Of course, ideology can play a role when the state gets to define legal
rules, which can affect outcomes in the market. That's all the more
reason to have a market for law. Provided people are protected in their
basic rights, it doesn't matter what principles people hold. To make
themselves better off, they have incentives to make others better off.
I do think an anarchist society--or any society--will need a large
number of its members to believe in its institutions to be be viable.
So I'm not totally discounting ideology. I am saying that political
opinions of buyers and sellers are not a major factor in whether the
market can bring people goods and services. It should not be surprising
that actors in a market focus on profits rather than principles, and
this is not a bad thing at all. (Imagine what it would be like if you
had to debate philosophy or politics every time you wanted to deal with
someone).
> However, in the
> past year, I've seen all these companies become just as ruthless
> as any multinational. I thought that all of the "dot coms" were
> small as a result of the industry functioning according to genuine
> free market principles, but in reality, they were just small *to
> begin with*. Most of them are small no longer. Furthermore, the
> more prosperous of these companies are now seeking to benefit
> from state privilege, which is evident in the many intellectual
> property lawsuits that are currently pending in the ecommerce
> industry.
I can't believe it, but Chris seems to confuse support for capitalism
with support for particular capitalists. None of what he is saying here
provides a reason to abandon libertariansm. Just the contrary.
> It was very disheartening to learn over time that
> this fact applies to *most* businesses, regardless of whether or
> not they happen to be corporations that profit from state favor.
> If they don't actually receive favors from the state, then it is
> typically their *aim* to receive them.
All the more reason to abolish the state. Or maybe we could abolish
corporations too. What is going to happen to these greedy people? Will
they magically become altruistic? More likely (presuming they aren't
murdered) they'll become bureaucrats in the the anarcho-socialist
"quasi-state" (as Tom Wetzel calls it), gradually consolidating all
power in their hands.
> Although the ISP is relatively small as of now,
> it doesn't aim to remain as such for very long. I will say that an
> ISP's expansion is generally not favored by employees, as it forces
> us to take responsibility for customer issues that we're in no
> position to fix (as was so common with the software company).
> Furthermore, those who run the company still think of the employees
> as a cost to be minimized. The rule is to hire as few as possible,
> pay them as little as possible, and make them work as often as
> possible.
And it's just the reverse for employees: to work as little as possible
for the most pay. So what?
Again, utopia is not an option. How are these people going to behave
under alternative institutions (presuming you have some coherent account
of alternative institutions)? If private goods are converted to public
goods, you have a major free rider problem. People will decide they
"need" more than is available, requiring some centralized institution to
lay down the law as to what people "really" need.
> As a right-wing
> libertarian capitalist, I was of the opinion that one could enter into
> a morally binding agreement in which one sacrifices one's liberty in
> exchange for a wage.
I am certain Chris did not have that opinion. I suspect that opinion is
a strawman version of Chris's former opinion.
Workers do not sacrifice their liberty in exchange for a wage. They
sacrifice time and energy, certainly, but not liberty. They are free to
enter into the agreement, and they are free to leave.
Certainly we can sympathize with workers who have little bargaining
leverage. But this is not the position of most workers. More
important, their plight does not warrant abrogating the freedom of
contract.
A while ago Chris distinguished "formal freedom" from "substantive
freedom." Many Marxists have scoffed at "bourgeois freedom," and I
think this attititude has led to the serious human rights abuses in all
plausibly Marxist countries. We cannot abandon the rights of free
speech, association, and property just because we think someone's
"needs" warrant doing so.
But don't doubt the efficacy of individual liberty: when our rights are
secure, including the right to make binding agreements, an extraordinary
number of complex exchanges are possible. More commerce means more
wealth for society as a whole, more opportunities, and more development.
This makes things easier for people who start out with little bargaining
power, and gives them the chance to gain more for themselves.
> My position was that a worker would be committing
> fraud against the employer if he attempted to retain rights to the
> full product of his labor.
He _does_ have rights to the full product of his labor--and grants them
to the employer. That's why the employer has to pay him.
> My argument was that if an employer has a
> "legitimate" prior claim upon the capital being used, then he has the
> right to dictate its terms of use. The laborer doesn't have the right
> to anything more than what the capitalist agrees to give, just as the
> capitalist doesn't have the right to take anything more than what the
> laborer agrees to give. (Of course, I didn't realize in my early
> "anarcho-capitalist" days that capitalists almost always demand more
> than what the worker initially agrees to give.)
So what? Does Chris really think there are no workers who demand pay
even when they've been slacking off the job? It cuts both ways. The
solution is not to prevent people from making agreements, but to enforce
agreements that are made.
> When I was working out my views
> regarding this issue, I decided to simplify my decision by subjecting
> myself to a thought experiment: Jones is a individual who has zero
> access to capital, which excludes him from being self-employed. He
> must must find somebody who will share access to capital if he is to
> continue to eat. Fortunately, Smith has plenty of capital, and is
> willing to share it -- under certain conditions of course. Smith says
> to Jones that he can use Smith's capital to produce, *provided* that
> Jones engages in 90% of the productivity while Smith engages in 10%.
> Also, Jones will only receive 10% of the revenues despite all of his
> hard work, while Smith gets to keep 90% for his hoggish self. Jones
> agrees to these conditions because he has no other option. Is Jones
> morally bound by his agreement to allow Smith to keep 8 in 9 parts
> of what what Jones produces?
Of course.
Honor your agreements. What's more important than truth and keeping of
faith? Are we to say lying and stealing are OK if you decide you need
to?
> The capitalist, of course, answers,
> "Yes", and I once would have given the same answer, even though I
> knew intuitively that such an arrangement would be grossly unfair.
> My current answer is "No" -- this relationship between Smith and
> Jones is inherently exploitive, and Jones is entitled to much better.
There's a difference between sympathizing with Jones and saying he is
entitled to renege on his agreement.
If we say agreements don't matter, how do we know how much Jones is
entitled to? In many cooperative enterprises it's not at all obvious
how much any particular employee contributes to production. Should
Jones be free to take as much as he wants? In that case Smith is being
robbed: Smith provided the capital, yet loses his reward.
I suggest that freedom necessitates the freedom to make agreements, and
you can't make agreements, especially important agreements, if you can't
have them enforced.
> What initially turned me
> off to social anarchism is the fact that many of its advocates don't
> address the prospect of what's commonly called the "tyranny of the
> majority", which I think is a valid concern. It cannot be emphasized
> enough that under anarchism, nobody would be forced to join a
> commune or a federation.
One thing James Donald helped me see is that if you stick to free
association, before long you are going to be back to capitalism. If
people are free to pursue their own goals--not the goals of the
majority, nor institutions claiming to represent it--they will
doubtlessly trade and specialize until some people are primarily owners
of capital, others are workers, and so on.
> If one wishes to be free to work
> independently of a democratic collective, this freedom would be
> acknowledged and respected, provided that one doesn't attempt to
> hoard more resources than one uses or employ people for a wage.
> Granted, anarchists wouldn't *ban* wage labor, but "agreements"
> in which workers sign away their liberty would not be enforced.
Passive voice. "Would not be enforced" by who? Recall Spooner, who
said that every man has a right to compel justice for himself and for
all who may be wronged; and while it may be desirable to form justice
associations, no one has a right to force others to join any particular
association.
In anarchy I intend to keep my property and my investments, and I would
divert some of my resources to pay for protection of my rights. Would
Chris deny me that right to choose my own organization for my defense
(which you better believe is going to be propertarian)?
Essentially it seems like Chris says I will be free, provided I submit
to the anarcho-socialist legal system--which, according to Tom Wetzel,
is enforced by a state (in the sense of a monopoly on the use of
legitimate force). Put more simply, I will be free provided I submit to
the rules Chris wishes me to live under. That's not what I call freedom.
> What makes us similar,
> however, is the fact that we oppose all forms of domination, period.
So does Chris oppose consensual S&M? Is Chris now like the Republicans,
who want to regulate what we do in the bedroom?
I doubt that he is. His statement needs qualification. What he
probably means is that truly consensual "domination" or "authority" is
legitimate, but wage agreements are not "really" consensual.
The problem is: once you've thrown out overtly voluntary agreements, who
decides when an agreement is "really" voluntary?
This is perhaps one reason people are suspicious of leftists: if one
party to an agreement can, at some later date, renege by claiming that
his bargaining power was insufficient, all business is going to stop.
No one could make agreements. There would have to be some higher
authority that would control what agreements are enforced; or, more
extremely, all agreements would cease and the higher authority would
control everyone and everything.
That's why Chris writes in the passive: maybe he doesn't realize it, but
his argument requires some authority to decide whether private
relationships are legitimate--he won't trust private individuals to make
their own decisions.
That's why, as Chris told me himself, much of anarcho-socialism is an
extremely authoritarian ideology--though I must grant that there are
different strands of anarcho-socialism, some more libertarian than
others.
--
"Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity."
-- Marshall McLuhan
cyeats
>
>
> How a Libertarian Capitalist Became a Libertarian Socialist
>
> by Chris Wilson
>
> independently of a democratic collective, this freedom would be
> acknowledged and respected, provided that one doesn't attempt to
> hoard more resources than one uses or employ people for a wage.
> Granted, anarchists wouldn't *ban* wage labor, but "agreements"
> in which workers sign away their liberty would not be enforced.
>
> Since making the transition from right-wing to left-wing libertarianism,
> I've discovered that factionalism and sectarianism is just as pervasive
> here as it was there, if not more so. Technology is a good example of
> an issue that divides the anarchist movement.
> labor is a consequence of technology in itself -- these undesirable
> things are caused by *capitalism*, by technology being developed for
> the sake of furthering the interests of a small oligarchy of elite
> individuals. I tend not to associate with the primitivists, as their
> vision is far too conflicting with mine.
These are very interesting points that you bring up. I will have to study
them a bit more this evening to digest everything that you wrote. I am a
social worker and I have noticed that every point that you bring up is also
used to run 'not-for-profit- agencies. The agency heads get 'in good' with
the local business community who is only interested in making things look
good. The end result however, is the business in collusion with the social
agency who want to condition people to work for the companies and by
'helping' the agency finance 'help' it looks nice for business. But really
is only capitalism saying, 'But now they can work so everything must be
well.' The social agencies end up as corrupt as the business world and
capitalism marches on and no one has been able to exercise their freedom.
James A. Donald
> http://www.egroups.com/group/smygo
>
>
> How a Libertarian Capitalist Became a Libertarian Socialist
>
> by Chris Wilson
>
> Part of the "Critiques of Libertarianism" site.
> http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
>
> Last updated 07/10/00.
>
> A couple years back when I was working toward a philosophy major
> in college, I wrote a rebuttal the section of The Anarchist FAQ
> that covers anarcho-capitalism. I removed the rebuttal from the
> web because I didn't have the time or inclination to continue to
> maintain it or expand upon it.
Yet oddly, I was debating Chris Wilson three years ago, and he
appeared to be a communist back then. He claimed to be an ex
libertarian back then also.
Conversions do not happen all at once, so his claim is not necessarily
a lie. He may have thought himself a dissident libertarian, when I
thought him a communist, but it is a little odd.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
FamOuS6siYCQzPNvyA32Fdv3hPd1D58WvIgABGB1
4qEwiNgyqMjIDm+t52DbgcNpaJGOgXBEJkVj2QGhD
------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
Gary McGuire
The chart below is close enough to what he is referring to to make the point that you can have mixed philosophy of any combination of poisons for your politics. I hope you can receive html. postings.
I love reading Robert A. Heinlein, he is a very interesting character that writes Si-Fi's on different political ideas. My favorite of his is "The Moon Makes a Harsh Mistress", I will not spoil it for you by telling you it's plot but it's a really nice book.
He mentioned Rand and I agree with most all of her philosophy but, her
delivery is so-so and she is very inconsistent in her quality of writing.
Â
"It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all." --Thomas Jefferson to M. D'Ivernois, 1795.
---------------------------------------
Â
Stvartak wrote:
For the last time, there is no such thing as a libertarian socialist! It's a
misnomer. What you are may be very noble and good, but to co-opt the word
"libertarian" is to deny the fundamental basis of socialism. Being socially
liberal doesn't make you a libertarian. You must be pro-freedom in economic
matters as well.
stvartak
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
news:399ED0...@columbia-center.org...
Andrew J. Brehm
> For the last time, there is no such thing as a libertarian socialist!
Liar!
> It's a
> misnomer. What you are may be very noble and good, but to co-opt the word
> "libertarian" is to deny the fundamental basis of socialism.
Excuse me? How does "belief in the doctrine of free will" deny "public
ownership of property"?
In contrast I have seen so many "libertarians" defend their capitalist
position on the basis of human nature, that I tend to believe that it is
only logical to assume that if capitalism is a derivative of human
nature, its opposite socialism (or communism) can well be a derivative
of human nature's opposite: the free will.
Also, the first people to use the "word" libertarian were socialists.
And only few of the early capitalist libertarians seemed to have quite
such an objectivist view of property either.
> Being socially
> liberal doesn't make you a libertarian. You must be pro-freedom in economic
> matters as well.
Your worldview is two limited and closeminded.
If all you associate with "socialism" is "socially liberal" you have
clearly fallen for something which some people want to make you believe.
So, given that
a) the original libertarians were socialists and/or other left-wingers
b) capitalists often defend the thesis that "socialism is against human
nature"
c) without initiation of force there CANNOT have been initial property
My only conclusion is that I cannot see what capitalism has to do with
libertarianism.
--
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
M. Simon
>Since making the transition from right-wing to left-wing libertarianism,
>I've discovered that factionalism and sectarianism is just as pervasive
>here as it was there, if not more so. Technology is a good example of
>an issue that divides the anarchist movement. On one hand, there are
>the anarcho-primitivist luddites who eschew all forms of complex
>technology and wish to return to a hunter-gather society, and on the
>other, there are the anarchists who feel that technology can be
>beneficial and usually is if its development is directed by workers
>themselves in a manner that is accountable to the communities it
>affects.
The commisars should definitely be in charge of designing
refrigerators.
M. Simon Space-Time Productions http://www.spacetimepro.com
Free CNC Machine Control Software
Free Source Code
Control the World From a Parallel Port
M. Simon
wrote:
>For the last time, there is no such thing as a libertarian socialist! It's a
>misnomer. What you are may be very noble and good, but to co-opt the word
>"libertarian" is to deny the fundamental basis of socialism. Being socially
>liberal doesn't make you a libertarian. You must be pro-freedom in economic
>matters as well.
>
>stvartak
Who says?
I like the juxtaposition. A Zen koan.
If the socialism is voluntary, fine. Otherewise fageddaboutit.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>Stvartak <stva...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>> It's a
>> misnomer. What you are may be very noble and good, but to co-opt the word
>> "libertarian" is to deny the fundamental basis of socialism.
>
>Excuse me? How does "belief in the doctrine of free will" deny "public
>ownership of property"?
Libertarians aren't supporters of the "doctrine of free will",
they support every individual's right to run their own life without
interference. The right to life and the right to liberty are meaningless
without the right to property.
If, for example, the collective owns the clothes I wear, the food I eat,
the tools I use to make my living, then the collective has the authority
to take these away from me at any time, and my "right to life" is pretty
damned worthless.
The right to property is the _most_ fundamental of all rights.
--
"I quite agree with you," said the Duchess; "and the moral of
that is -- `Be what you would seem to be' -- or, if you'd like it put
more simply -- `Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it
might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not
otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be
otherwise.'"
-- Lewis Carrol, "Alice in Wonderland"
M. Simon
Brehm) wrote:
>Stvartak <stva...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>> For the last time, there is no such thing as a libertarian socialist!
>
>Liar!
>
>> It's a
>> misnomer. What you are may be very noble and good, but to co-opt the word
>> "libertarian" is to deny the fundamental basis of socialism.
>
>Excuse me? How does "belief in the doctrine of free will" deny "public
>ownership of property"?
>
>In contrast I have seen so many "libertarians" defend their capitalist
>position on the basis of human nature, that I tend to believe that it is
>only logical to assume that if capitalism is a derivative of human
>nature, its opposite socialism (or communism) can well be a derivative
>of human nature's opposite: the free will.
The only free person in a socialist system is Stalin.
And even he must be constantly watching his own back.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>If the socialism is voluntary, fine. Otherewise fageddaboutit.
There are voluntary communist communities, and as long as every member
retains the ability to leave at any time, the true libertarian accepts
them.
--
The correct way to punctuate a sentence that starts: "Of course it is
none of my business but --" is to place a period after the word
"but." Don't use excessive force in supplying such moron with a
period. Cutting his throat is only a momentary pleasure and is bound
to get you talked about.
-- R. A. Heinlein
Andrew J. Brehm
> I believe he's trying to say that he is a LIBERAL in caps. and italics
> while underlined with a socialist agenda, and a smidgen of liberty smeared
> over parts of it somewhere if you can still identify it for what it is.
Well, _I_ believe he's trying to say that he believes in free will, and
thus equal individual rights, as a way to implement a socialist or
communist view of what these rights ought to be.
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/0/0,5716,63200+1+61639,00.html
Also look up "Baldwin, Roger Nash".
Given that "libertarian" means "an advocate of the doctrine of free
will" (look up in http://www.webster.com), and given that "socialism"
defines a certain set of rights, what would we call an advocate of the
doctrine of free will who happens to be a socialist?
I even think that a socialist would very probably be an advocate of free
will anyway. But don't just take my word for it, take James Donald's sig
for it:
<quote sig>
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property,
because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
</quote>
"the kind of animal we are" is the opposite of "free will".
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/1/0,5716,35951+1+35292,00.html
And any system that specifically derives from human nature is thus the
opposite of libertarianism. I am not saying it doesn't make sense to
base an idea of rights on human nature, but I am saying that social
darwinists did so too.
James Donald could be wrong, of course.
I do not say that I have hereby proven that "libertarian capitalism" is
not a form of libertarianism.
But I do object to calling objectivism a form of libertarianism, since
"The third axiom at the base of knowledge - an axiom true, in
Aristotle's words, of "being qua being" - is the Law of Identity. This
law defines the essence of existence: to be is to be something, a thing
is what it is; and leads to the fundamental principle of all action, the
law of causality. The law of causality states that a thing's actions are
determined not by chance, but by its nature, i.e., by what it is."
http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/pobs.html
Myself, I now consider some forms of anarcho-capitalism and
anarcho-socialism to be "libertarianism", but I still don't fully see
how the first derives its notion of property rights from free will (it
seems to require "self-ownership" and certain rights that interact with
it) or how the second could actually work.
Gary McGuire
Could you go further in explaining point c)" without initiation of force there CANNOT have been initial property"
I can't understand that logic. If I labor I earn, that is property. That is not a initiation of force against anyone. On the other hand if I decide not to labor, (work) I should have no one to blame if I get hungry, or starve it would seem.
Gary
"It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all." --Thomas Jefferson to M. D'Ivernois, 1795.
James A. Donald
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 02:44:52 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C.
Dege) wrote:
> There are voluntary communist communities,
Really? Where.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
jUD5/4g7auOV4oOXrA0UxJTI4e7eLdVhUyHj1DM+
4OnJ8nbDeNRnSxv/3GuZ8WAZJjiEi2xEBiC7DoNdB
------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
Gary McGuire
Gary
"All human actions have one or more of these seven causes: chance, nature,
compulsion, habit, reason, passion, desire." --
Aristotle
Gary McGuire
Andrew J. Brehm
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 03:50:01 +0200, Andrew J. Brehm
> <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote: >Stvartak <stva...@prodigy.net> wrote: >
> >> It's a >> misnomer. What you are may be very noble and good, but to
> co-opt the word >> "libertarian" is to deny the fundamental basis of
> socialism. > >Excuse me? How does "belief in the doctrine of free will"
> deny "public >ownership of property"?
>
> Libertarians aren't supporters of the "doctrine of free will",
Excuse me, but this is EXACTLY what they are. Words mean things.
> they support every individual's right to run their own life without
> interference.
How can they believe in property? Original acquisiton of unowned objects
certainly did interfere with the others.
> The right to life and the right to liberty are meaningless without the
> right to property.
Is it this belief that makes so many "libertarians" reduce liberty to
property?
> If, for example, the collective owns the clothes I wear, the food I eat,
> the tools I use to make my living, then the collective has the authority
> to take these away from me at any time, and my "right to life" is pretty
> damned worthless.
You don't understand libertarian socialiasm.
Maybe Ron Allen comes back for another round to explain it.
> The right to property is the _most_ fundamental of all rights.
It is also the only right that depends on objects and is defined by its
usage of limiting liberty.
Andrew J. Brehm
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 03:50:01 +0200, and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J.
> Brehm) wrote:
>
> >Stvartak <stva...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >
> >> For the last time, there is no such thing as a libertarian socialist!
> >
> >Liar!
> >
> >> It's a
> >> misnomer. What you are may be very noble and good, but to co-opt the word
> >> "libertarian" is to deny the fundamental basis of socialism.
> >
> >Excuse me? How does "belief in the doctrine of free will" deny "public
> >ownership of property"?
> >
> >In contrast I have seen so many "libertarians" defend their capitalist
> >position on the basis of human nature, that I tend to believe that it is
> >only logical to assume that if capitalism is a derivative of human
> >nature, its opposite socialism (or communism) can well be a derivative
> >of human nature's opposite: the free will.
>
>
> The only free person in a socialist system is Stalin.
>
> And even he must be constantly watching his own back.
Don't be smart on me.
Either try to defend your position or admit you are wrong or don't know
how to defend your position.
Libertarian mantras do not convince anyone, except if they are dumb or
already convinced or both.
Andrew J. Brehm
> Political ideas can be very mixed and muddled but many forms of state
> would obviously require a great deal of force to keep them in the bounds
> of their philosophy, Proudhon's " vision of the ideal society almost to
> the end remained that of a world in which peasant farmers and small
> craftsmen like his father could live in freedom, peace, and dignified
> poverty, for luxury repelled him, and he never sought it for himself or
> others." The or "others" part is what I understand as needing a bit (a
> lot) force to keep the utopia in check, because I would start selling the
> first thing I could to acquire wealth. Of course I know many people that
> say they were happy being poor, but I know of none that would go back to
> being poor of their own choice. That is where anarchist or socialist
> become not so liberal they get out the guns and tell you it's for the
> betterment of a greater society that you hand over X.
A communist society could be reached by forcing you not to sell what you
acquire. Obviously this wouldn't be anarchism or libertarianism.
But imagine starting from a different point of view, a different set of
axioms, so to speak.
"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of
society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate
the labour of others by means of such appropriations." (Communist
Manifesto)
There are _many_ different theories how property is created, how and why
it exists, what rights are related to it, and what it is for.
Let's go from communism to capitalism:
1. All natural resources are owned by mankind in common, nobody can
claim private ownership beyond what he needs (anarcho-socialism).
2. All land is owned by mankind in common, nobody can claim more land
than his fair share. What goes beyond his share, he has to compensate
the others for the loss of. Other resources can be claimed as private
property (Georgism).
3. All natural resources can be claimed as long as nobody else's
situation is worsened by the appropriation or owning of the resource
(libertarianism).
4. All natural resources can be claimed as long as there is enough left
for others (classic liberalism).
5. All natural resources can be claimed as private property
(anarcho-capitalism).
There is no reason to assume that any of these ideas are the truth,
since the only person who might know might not even exist.
Andrew J. Brehm
> Hi Andrew, Could you go further in explaining point c)" without initiation
> of force there CANNOT have been initial property" I can't understand that
> logic. If I labor I earn, that is property. That is not a initiation of
> force against anyone. On the other hand if I decide not to labor, (work)
> I should have no one to blame if I get hungry, or starve it would seem.
Initial property acquisition refers to the acquisition of unowned
material (natural resources), making them private property.
Initially the problem was that one person claiming to "own" a specific
object (maybe a tree) is equal to his taking away everybody else's
liberty to also access the tree (maybe it is an apple tree) without
their consent.
While this does not seem to be a problem anymore, since this happened
thousands of years ago, it is still the situation new-born children are
confronted with. They depend on how much their parents could appropriate
or buy. They have no _right_ to anything, but they have to serve those
who claimed this right before they were born.
Theoretically, this could result in the anti-thesis of liberty:
"LAND, n. A part of the earth's surface, considered as property. The
theory that land is property subject to private ownership and control is
the foundation of modern society, and is eminently worthy of the
superstructure. Carried to its logical conclusion, it means that some
have the right to prevent others from living; for the right to own
implies the right exclusively to occupy; and in fact laws of trespass
are enacted wherever property in land is recognized. It follows that if
the whole area of terra firma is owned by A, B and C, there will be no
place for D, E, F and G to be born, or, born as trespassers, to exist."
(Ambrose Bierce, the Devil's Dictionary. I could not find anything that
would explain it better!)
Apparently, property rights CAN nullify the whole idea of natural equal
rights.
I am not saying that this would affect many people, but it is a possible
conclusion, and the theory has no way to prevent this.
Of course this is only true for the extreme capitalist theories of
property rights.
Ben Sharvy
<matt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Of course state-sanctioned corporate charters should go.
> It's not yet clear to me if they would arise out of voluntary contracts.
> It seems, however, anti-libertarian to oppose corporate charters in
> existence now, because the state monopolizes the legal system.
> Corporations can't be blamed for that.
Corporate charters are un-libertarian because they constitute government
meddling in the free market; they have nothing to do with defense of
individual rights, which is the only legitimate function of libertarian
government. It is not un-libertarian for "the state to monopolize the
legal system", unless you are equating libertarian with anarchist.
> Of course, ideology can play a role when the state gets to define legal
> rules, which can affect outcomes in the market. That's all the more
> reason to have a market for law.
What does "a market for law" mean?
> Are we to say lying and stealing are OK if you decide you need
> to?
Why not? I would certainly lie if the choice were between lying and
starving. So would most people. I'm fond of survival, personally.
Ben Sharvy
<stva...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> For the last time, there is no such thing as a libertarian socialist!
For the last time, yes there is.
You really know how to have a conversation.
Jeffrey C. Dege
> --
>On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 02:44:52 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C.
>Dege) wrote:
>> There are voluntary communist communities,
>
>Really? Where.
A communist community is one where they hold all property in common.
There are a fair number of small communities of this sort scattered
around the US - some are based in religion, some are throwbacks to the
60's communes.
The members voluntarily surrender their possessions to the commune, and
as long as the members retain their ability to leave should they choose,
it's nobody else's business.
--
"It is not Microsoft's monopoly that I object to, it is the mediocrity
of their products."
-- Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle
Jeffrey C. Dege
>Good question!!! None in the known world have ever lasted.
(You're top-posting, so I cannot quote properly).
That voluntary communes tend to collapse after a while (often as the
ordinary members find out that the organizers, for all of their talk of
consensus, are the worst sort of control-freaks), does not contradict
the fact that such communities do exist.
Some of the religious communities manage to survive for a fair bit
of time.
--
Lord Karasumaru considered it a grave mistake on the part of the gods to
have made a man like himself a nobleman. And, though a servant of the
Emperor, he saw only two paths open to him: to live in constant misery or
to spend his time carousing. The sensible choice was to rest his head
on the knees of a beautiful woman, admire the pale light of the moon,
view the cherry blossoms in season and die with a cup of sake in his hand.
-- Eiji Yoshikawa, "Musashi"
Jeffrey C. Dege
>Jeffrey C. Dege <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote:
>
>> If, for example, the collective owns the clothes I wear, the food I eat,
>> the tools I use to make my living, then the collective has the authority
>> to take these away from me at any time, and my "right to life" is pretty
>> damned worthless.
>
>You don't understand libertarian socialiasm.
All right then, explain it to me. _Everything_ is controlled by somebody.
If _I_ don't have control over the clothing I wear, who does?
--
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the
most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under
omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep,
his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our
own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of
their consciences.
- C. S. Lewis
Andrew J. Brehm
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 07:14:23 +0200, Andrew J. Brehm
> <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote: >Jeffrey C. Dege <jd...@jdege.visi.com>
> wrote: > >> If, for example, the collective owns the clothes I wear, the
> food I eat, >> the tools I use to make my living, then the collective has
> the authority >> to take these away from me at any time, and my "right to
> life" is pretty >> damned worthless. > >You don't understand libertarian
> socialiasm.
>
> All right then, explain it to me. _Everything_ is controlled by somebody.
> If _I_ don't have control over the clothing I wear, who does?
I don't know _who_ would have control over the clothing you wear, if
_you_ don't.
And the fact that you would somehow chose not to have control over your
own cloth in libertarian socialism is exactly what I mean by "you don't
understand libertarian socialism".
For example NONE of the people advocating libertarian socialism in
talk.politics.libertarian and alt.philosophy.debate have EVER advocated
collective control of cloth or similar property.
If you don't like libertarian socialism, argue against it. But don't
make up ridiculous claims and wait for somebody to explain them to you.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>Jeffrey C. Dege <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 07:14:23 +0200, Andrew J. Brehm
>> <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote: >Jeffrey C. Dege <jd...@jdege.visi.com>
>> wrote: > >> If, for example, the collective owns the clothes I wear, the
>> food I eat, >> the tools I use to make my living, then the collective has
>> the authority >> to take these away from me at any time, and my "right to
>> life" is pretty >> damned worthless. > >You don't understand libertarian
>> socialiasm.
>>
>> All right then, explain it to me. _Everything_ is controlled by somebody.
>> If _I_ don't have control over the clothing I wear, who does?
>
>I don't know _who_ would have control over the clothing you wear, if
>_you_ don't.
Then if _I_ have control over my clothing, then your Libertarian Socialism
_does_, in fact, allow for private ownership of property.
I have to assume that there are some sorts of property that you do
not allow to be privately owned. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this
argument.
What, pray tell, is used to distinguish between these two classes of
property?
--
Politician, n.:
An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of
organized society is reared. When he wriggles, he mistakes the
agitation of his tail for the trembling of the edifice. As compared
with the statesman, he suffers the disadvantage of being alive.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Gary McGuire
because it leaves liberty enough for communities to form like yours, if you
freely contract to do so. I don't think your version of government would be as
liberal, do you? As far as a states nature to grow and become oppressive, our
version would seem to have a much less likely hood to become oppressive. What's
more nice or fair at the time means little if you can't control the tools of the
state (force); they in every instance in history have became corrupt. So really
any, and every government will cycle.
In America we are supposed to have a great document to prevent government from
getting so out of hand, but the congress doesn't fallow it, bill clinton for
damn sure doesn't, and the judges put in place to enforce the meaning of the law
don't, they say it doesn't mean what it says.
No I'm not apathetic, I vote.
I'm a realist.
Gary
The philosophers have only interpreted the world; the thing, however, is to
change it.
Karl Marx
James A. Donald
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 02:44:52 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C.
Dege) wrote:
> > > There are voluntary communist communities,
James A. Donald:
> > Really? Where.
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 06:21:58 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C.
Dege) wrote:
> A communist community is one where they hold all property in common.
> There are a fair number of small communities of this sort scattered
> around the US - some are based in religion, some are throwbacks to
> the 60's communes.
If there are a fair number, you should be able to name and locate at
least one.
As I recall the sixties, the longest lasting ones lasted about as long
as it took for the piled up garbage to become intolerable.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
o7hM/hTJtpDkqJHrY02tCz9PGhI98U/O3qqELWqr
4FSo3EEalYOtJWMwXps54aGMxwH3kYSlLO0QT4kmF
James A. Donald
In article <8nn973$20pa$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>, "Stvartak"
<stva...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> > For the last time, there is no such thing as a libertarian socialist!
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 06:18:07 GMT, Ben Sharvy <bsh...@home.com> wrote:
> For the last time, yes there is.
No "libertarian" socialist has ever given a coherent explanation of
how to have socialism without a central planning apparatus.
When the catalonian anarchists had a stab, some of them simply were
not genuine about being anarchists, and others were serious about
being anarchists, but reacted by applying centralized coercion when
individuals failed to act in a socialist manner.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
9SozPnjSJmTHJWowdbKKauqz1QuBdFFGzFECojgq
4NN00x7cdfG2Um9PcNO1gyqrrkELChRx33zS5fh7h
Dan Clore
> Gary McGuire <2mon...@home.com> wrote:
> > I believe he's trying to say that he is a LIBERAL in caps. and italics
> > while underlined with a socialist agenda, and a smidgen of liberty smeared
> > over parts of it somewhere if you can still identify it for what it is.
>
> Well, _I_ believe he's trying to say that he believes in free will, and
> thus equal individual rights, as a way to implement a socialist or
> communist view of what these rights ought to be.
>
> http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/0/0,5716,63200+1+61639,00.html
>
> Also look up "Baldwin, Roger Nash".
>
> Given that "libertarian" means "an advocate of the doctrine of free
> will" (look up in http://www.webster.com), and given that "socialism"
> defines a certain set of rights, what would we call an advocate of the
> doctrine of free will who happens to be a socialist?
You are mistaken. In both cases the term "libertarian" means "an
advocate of liberty".
--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
"Tho-ag in Zhi-gyu slept seven Khorlo. Zodmanas
zhiba. All Nyug bosom. Konch-hog not; Thyan-Kam
not; Lha-Chohan not; Tenbrel Chugnyi not;
Dharmakaya ceased; Tgenchang not become; Barnang
and Ssa in Ngovonyidj; alone Tho-og Yinsin in
night of Sun-chan and Yong-grub (Parinishpanna),
&c., &c.,"
-- The Book of Dzyan.
Dan Clore
>
> For the last time, there is no such thing as a libertarian socialist! It's a
> misnomer. What you are may be very noble and good, but to co-opt the word
> "libertarian" is to deny the fundamental basis of socialism.
Two points: libertarian socialists cannot be co-opting the word
"libertarian", because they used it first -- for about a hundred years
before things had gotten confused enough that anyone even suggested
applying it to anyone else.
The fundamental basis of socialism, incidentally, is that the workers
themselves own and control the means of production (hence the term
"socialism", from a Latin root meaning "equal, ally, partner,
associate"), rather than the means of production being owned and
controlled by an elite class of capitalists (hence the term
"capitalism").
I realize that both of these terms have been subjected to an ungodly
amount of distortion and given Newspeak-type redefinitions, but one
should try to face the facts.
> Being socially
> liberal doesn't make you a libertarian. You must be pro-freedom in economic
> matters as well.
Which is precisely why libertarian socialists call themselves that. You
cannot be pro-freedom in economic matters and simultaneously advocate a
system (capitalism) in which the majority need to work for an elite in
order to survive.
Dan Parker
> > The right to property is the _most_ fundamental of all rights.
>
> It is also the only right that depends on objects and is defined by its
> usage of limiting liberty.
Your eyes are objects. Can anyone poke them out?
Freedom from is as important as freedom to. No
property or air rights, hey you get to listen to my
music LOUD, so I can be free. Get the Flouride
out of the water and the Edu/TV out of the brain.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of
society but the people themselves; and if we think
them not enlightened enough to exercise their control
with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take
it from them, but to inform their discretion by education."
- Thomas Jefferson
G*rd*n
| >> On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 07:14:23 +0200, Andrew J. Brehm
| >> <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote: >Jeffrey C. Dege <jd...@jdege.visi.com>
| >> wrote: > >> If, for example, the collective owns the clothes I wear, the
| >> food I eat, >> the tools I use to make my living, then the collective has
| >> the authority >> to take these away from me at any time, and my "right to
| >> life" is pretty >> damned worthless. > >You don't understand libertarian
| >> socialiasm.
<and...@netneurotic.de> wrote:
| >> All right then, explain it to me. _Everything_ is controlled by somebody.
| >> If _I_ don't have control over the clothing I wear, who does?
Andrew J. Brehm
| >I don't know _who_ would have control over the clothing you wear, if
| >_you_ don't.
jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege):
| Then if _I_ have control over my clothing, then your Libertarian Socialism
| _does_, in fact, allow for private ownership of property.
|
| I have to assume that there are some sorts of property that you do
| not allow to be privately owned. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this
| argument.
|
| What, pray tell, is used to distinguish between these two classes of
| property?
Just as a matter of vocabulary, _socialism_ is usually defined
as control of the _means_of_production_ by the working class,
or the people generally. It's not a species of communism,
which is what seems to be understood above.
One can argue about just what the "means of production" are,
but it's a considerable stretch to include consumer goods
like clothing, or parts of one's body. That seems kind of,
well, obtuse, as a matter of fact.
Gary McGuire
"Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
> Gary McGuire <2mon...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > Political ideas can be very mixed and muddled but many forms of state
> > would obviously require a great deal of force to keep them in the bounds
> > of their philosophy, Proudhon's " vision of the ideal society almost to
> > the end remained that of a world in which peasant farmers and small
> > craftsmen like his father could live in freedom, peace, and dignified
> > poverty, for luxury repelled him, and he never sought it for himself or
> > others." The or "others" part is what I understand as needing a bit (a
> > lot) force to keep the utopia in check, because I would start selling the
> > first thing I could to acquire wealth. Of course I know many people that
> > say they were happy being poor, but I know of none that would go back to
> > being poor of their own choice. That is where anarchist or socialist
> > become not so liberal they get out the guns and tell you it's for the
> > betterment of a greater society that you hand over X.
>
> A communist society could be reached by forcing you not to sell what you
> acquire. Obviously this wouldn't be anarchism or libertarianism.
>
That's not a free society at all really. I couldn't sell what I acquire, or
employ anyone to tend a herd or even baby sit my children, unless for barter;
and even that would be a transfer of wealth (probably illegal or against the
nature of that systems ideology).
It sounds like a very unworkable system; difficult to police.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 06:21:58 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C.
>Dege) wrote:
>> A communist community is one where they hold all property in common.
>> There are a fair number of small communities of this sort scattered
>> around the US - some are based in religion, some are throwbacks to
>> the 60's communes.
>
>least one.
One that has been in the news recently was Mount Carmel, in Waco Texas.
>As I recall the sixties, the longest lasting ones lasted about as long
>as it took for the piled up garbage to become intolerable.
As I said, that they rarely last long doesn't mean that they don't exist.
--
Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
>>
>> Given that "libertarian" means "an advocate of the doctrine of free
>> will" (look up in http://www.webster.com), and given that "socialism"
>> defines a certain set of rights, what would we call an advocate of the
>> doctrine of free will who happens to be a socialist?
>
>advocate of liberty".
The foundation of Libertarianism is the non-coercion principle. If it
doesn't include that, or if it attempts to weasle around it "for the
greater good", it isn't Libertarian.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>|
>| I have to assume that there are some sorts of property that you do
>| not allow to be privately owned. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this
>| argument.
>|
>| What, pray tell, is used to distinguish between these two classes of
>| property?
>
>as control of the _means_of_production_ by the working class,
>or the people generally. It's not a species of communism,
>which is what seems to be understood above.
>
>One can argue about just what the "means of production" are,
>but it's a considerable stretch to include consumer goods
>like clothing, or parts of one's body. That seems kind of,
>well, obtuse, as a matter of fact.
That there is some sort of clear qualitative difference between property
that is a "means of production" and property that is merely a consumer
good is rather naive.
Does my 1/4 drill count as a means of production? My desktop lathe?
My personal computer?
--
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>| Then if _I_ have control over my clothing, then your Libertarian Socialism
>| _does_, in fact, allow for private ownership of property.
>|
>| I have to assume that there are some sorts of property that you do
>| not allow to be privately owned. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this
>| argument.
>|
>| What, pray tell, is used to distinguish between these two classes of
>| property?
>
>as control of the _means_of_production_ by the working class,
>or the people generally. It's not a species of communism,
>which is what seems to be understood above.
>
>One can argue about just what the "means of production" are,
>but it's a considerable stretch to include consumer goods
>like clothing, or parts of one's body. That seems kind of,
>well, obtuse, as a matter of fact.
That there is some sort of clear qualitative difference between property
that is a "means of production" and property that is merely a consumer
good is rather naive.
Does my 1/4" drill count as a means of production? My desktop lathe?
My personal computer?
--
Feles mala! Cur cista non uteris? Stramentum novum in ea posui.
Matt
(James A. Donald) wrote:
> --
> In article <8nn973$20pa$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>, "Stvartak"
> <stva...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> > > For the last time, there is no such thing as a libertarian socialist!
>
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 06:18:07 GMT, Ben Sharvy <bsh...@home.com> wrote:
> > For the last time, yes there is.
>
> No "libertarian" socialist has ever given a coherent explanation of
> how to have socialism without a central planning apparatus.
Except maybe Tucker, whose 'socialism' bears a close resemblance to what
is today called capitalism.
--
"Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity."
-- Marshall McLuhan
Jon
description of Libertarianism. From the things they
advocate it seems to me that instead of "One should be free
to conduct their own lives." they really mean that people
should be free to conduct their own lives regardless of the
consequenses to others. They seem to believe that if in the
course of aquiring power one can enforce the golden rule
then so be it. I refer of course to the golden rule that
says the rules are made by they who have the gold. To
believe that if you give someone the power to aquire power
almost without restraint won't lead to taking away the
power of the majority is fantasy.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Matt
<bsh...@home.com> wrote:
[...]
> It is not un-libertarian for "the state to monopolize the
> legal system", unless you are equating libertarian with anarchist.
I recognize there are libertarians who are not anarchists, but they are
inconsistent. I do not totally disqualify them from being libertarians,
but it is indeed anti-libertarian of them to forbid people from choosing
their own defense services and courts.
> > Of course, ideology can play a role when the state gets to define legal
> > rules, which can affect outcomes in the market. That's all the more
> > reason to have a market for law.
>
> What does "a market for law" mean?
It means private firms would produce theories of law. If people find
one theory attractive, they could subscribe to it by selecting that firm
as an arbitrator. Firms that produce unattractive law lose profits;
firms that produce attractive law succeed. You may want to read
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_2
9.html
for a more detailed explanation of how such a system might work, and why
some of the most obvious objections are false.
> > Are we to say lying and stealing are OK if you decide you need
> > to?
>
> Why not? I would certainly lie if the choice were between lying and
> starving. So would most people. I'm fond of survival, personally.
OK, I will grant that there are situations in which I would lie or
steal. But I think the real issue is not whether we can ever accept
people behaving this way, but how we treat them when they do.
For example, if I find I have to steal to survive, I would do so, but
that does not excuse me from violating someone's rights. When it's
possible to do so, I'm obligated to pay damages to the owner for what I
stole.
The point I was making earlier was not an attempt to offer an absolute
rule for how people must behave. Rather it was to reject the notion
that morality depends on individual subjective determinations. I don't
think this is true at all, and I think this view destroys the basis for
civil society, because no one could trust one another.
I do grant that law is necessarily complicated, and absolute rules based
on dogmatic principles tend to break down in certain situations. But
that doesn't mean that there should be no law, that people may
arbitrarily decide to violate the rights of others--which is the case
when Chris Wilson decides he is entitled to commit fraud because he
thinks he isn't getting a good deal.
Thelonious Pepper
> No "libertarian" socialist has ever given a coherent explanation of
> how to have socialism without a central planning apparatus.
Very few people around here have ever given a coherent explanation of
anything.
Neither school of thought calling itself "libertarian socialist"
(Geoists, and Socialist-anarchists like Noam Chomsky) advocate straight
socialism, so your point is obscure. But Chomsky generally gives lucid
explanations of anything he tries to explain, so you might start with
him.
Thelonious Pepper
In article <matth2000-D1CCC...@supernews.110.net>, Matt
<matt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <bsharvy-1159E3.23225119082000@news>, Ben Sharvy
> <bsh...@home.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > It is not un-libertarian for "the state to monopolize the
> > legal system", unless you are equating libertarian with anarchist.
>
> I recognize there are libertarians who are not anarchists [snip]
> but it is indeed anti-libertarian of them to forbid people from choosing
> their own defense services and courts.
A conventional use of the word "libertarian" differentiates libertarians
from anarchists. It is probably more conventional than the sense of the
word which equates them.
> > What does "a market for law" mean?
>
> It means private firms would produce theories of law. If people find
> one theory attractive, they could subscribe to it by selecting that firm
> as an arbitrator. Firms that produce unattractive law lose profits;
> firms that produce attractive law succeed.
The firms would merely arbitrate? Law usually has an enforcement
component.
The scenario you describe has no protections against the abuse of
minorities, and (this is related) no recognition of natural rights.
What about the theory of law that there should be one judicial system
per jurisdiction?
Depending on how one spins the senses of the words you're using, it may
be possible to describe our current system as a "a market for law"? What
do people every time they vote? They choose (like a consumer of law) a
system.
Andrew J. Brehm
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 08:32:43 +0200, Andrew J. Brehm
> <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote: >Jeffrey C. Dege <jd...@jdege.visi.com>
> wrote: > >> On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 07:14:23 +0200, Andrew J. Brehm >>
> <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote: >Jeffrey C. Dege <jd...@jdege.visi.com> >>
> wrote: > >> If, for example, the collective owns the clothes I wear, the
> >> food I eat, >> the tools I use to make my living, then the collective
> has >> the authority >> to take these away from me at any time, and my
> "right to >> life" is pretty >> damned worthless. > >You don't understand
> libertarian >> socialiasm. >> >> All right then, explain it to me.
> _Everything_ is controlled by somebody. >> If _I_ don't have control over
> the clothing I wear, who does? > >I don't know _who_ would have control
> over the clothing you wear, if >_you_ don't.
>
> Then if _I_ have control over my clothing, then your Libertarian Socialism
> _does_, in fact, allow for private ownership of property.
I hope so.
> I have to assume that there are some sorts of property that you do not
> allow to be privately owned. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this
> argument.
Not neccessarily. It might just be a different concept of property
libertarian socialists advocate. Maybe you are entitled not to what you
produce, but to what you need?
> What, pray tell, is used to distinguish between these two classes of
> property?
Theory.
Andrew J. Brehm
I am not mistaken and there never was a non-coercion principle.
The basis was the doctrine of free will, and this is why you can find
"libertarianism" defined as such in encyclopedias all around the world
(the German word "libertaer" means the same "advocate of the doctrine of
free will). The "liber" aspect refers to being free from human nature,
aka being able to make your own choises independent from what kind of
animal you are.
The non-coercion "principle" is not a principle at all, but rather a
theorem based on the real principle "doctrine of free will".
Look up some texts from before the LP was founded and you will find that
I am correct.
Specifically it might help to look up some things Ayn Rand said about
libertarianism. Apart from all that I don't like about her (like her
philosophy), she at least had the decency to be honest about her
definitions and quite clear in her writings.
http://aynrand.org/objectivism/Q5.html
Andrew J. Brehm
> "Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
>
> > > The right to property is the _most_ fundamental of all rights.
> >
> > It is also the only right that depends on objects and is defined by its
> > usage of limiting liberty.
>
> Your eyes are objects. Can anyone poke them out?
Given that hurting me would be a violation of my rights in communism,
how do you think it would be possible?
Jeffrey C. Dege
>Jeffrey C. Dege <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote:
>
>> I have to assume that there are some sorts of property that you do not
>> allow to be privately owned. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this
>> argument.
>
>libertarian socialists advocate. Maybe you are entitled not to what you
>produce, but to what you need?
And who judges need?
--
When a clever man was stupid, he was stupid in a way a man who was
stupid all the time could never hope to match, for the clever man's
stupidity, drawing as it did on so much more knowledge, had a breadth
and depth to it the run-of-the-mill fool found impossible to duplicate.
-- Harry Turtledove
BertW
> --
>On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 02:44:52 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C.
>Dege) wrote:
>> There are voluntary communist communities,
>
>
Every family that I know of.
James A. Donald
--
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 17:28:14 GMT, Thelonious Pepper <bsh...@home.com>
wrote:
> Neither school of thought calling itself "libertarian socialist"
> (Geoists, and Socialist-anarchists like Noam Chomsky) advocate
> straight socialism, so your point is obscure. But Chomsky generally
> gives lucid explanations of anything he tries to explain,
Matt summarized Chomsky's writing style: "I thought it was clear and
explicit. Of course, I had no idea what he just said."
Let us once again recollect Chomsky's "clear and explicit" explanation
of what he meant by "the case of the missing bloodbath"
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=576356905&fmt=text>
But then you might argue that in that case he is trying not to explain
Unfortunately, it seems that whenever he is quoted, he is similarly
trying to obscure and evade, rather than explain. Chomsky equivocates
every time he lies, and since he lies continually, he equivocates
continually.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
oCSFV+0jOppsmI+V5l8d1gUsgtkTBI9S0834GFeM
4zXk6bonaoOHpWYeoE09+lByLLjEzUIajRBWpZ+bE
G*rd*n
communities of various kinds:
http://www.twinoaks.org/
http://www.nelson.planet.org.nz/riverside/
http://www.catholicworker.org/
http://www.well.com/user/ganas/home/index.html
http://www.mondragon.mcc.es/
These in turn should provide links to other similar
enterprises. There is also _Communities_ magazine,
at
http://fic.ic.org/cmag/
Of course, not all of these are "communist" literally
speaking. And needless to say, not all communal groups
choose to publicize their existence on the Net or with
_Communities_ magazine. There seem to be several hundred,
maybe a few thousand, in existence at this time, some
exhibiting considerable longevity.
I am surprised to see James putting on a show of ignorance,
since he has been one of the beneficiaries of prior articles
of mine on this topic.
jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege):
| On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 07:15:36 GMT, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
| >On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 06:21:58 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C.
| >Dege) wrote:
| >> A communist community is one where they hold all property in common.
| >> There are a fair number of small communities of this sort scattered
| >> around the US - some are based in religion, some are throwbacks to
| >> the 60's communes.
| >
| >If there are a fair number, you should be able to name and locate at
| >least one.
|
| One that has been in the news recently was Mount Carmel, in Waco Texas.
|
| >As I recall the sixties, the longest lasting ones lasted about as long
| >as it took for the piled up garbage to become intolerable.
|
| As I said, that they rarely last long doesn't mean that they don't exist.
|
Thelonious Pepper
(James A. Donald) wrote:
> -- 1
> --
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 17:28:14 GMT, Thelonious Pepper <bsh...@home.com>
> wrote:
> > Neither school of thought calling itself "libertarian socialist"
> > (Geoists, and Socialist-anarchists like Noam Chomsky) advocate
> > straight socialism, so your point is obscure. But Chomsky generally
> > gives lucid explanations of anything he tries to explain,
> Let us once again recollect Chomsky's "clear and explicit" explanation
> of what he meant by "the case of the missing bloodbath"
> <http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=576356905&fmt=text>
That URL points to a Usenet post by you which excerpts one or two
phrases from Chomsky (over and over). Your article furthermore seems to
concern whether Chomsky made a true prediction, not whether he was clear
about anything.
A more relevant citation, in this case, would point to some essay(s) by
Chomsky, especially explanatory ones.
korac
"Jeffrey C. Dege" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 20:17:02 +0200, Andrew J. Brehm <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote:
> >Not neccessarily. It might just be a different concept of property
> >libertarian socialists advocate. Maybe you are entitled not to what you
> >produce, but to what you need?
>
> And who judges need?
>
The politburo, of course. True party members would never be immoral or
unjust, they are for the people, da? If they have to send people to
the gulag who violate party judgements, well they deservied it anyway
right?
Rich Vaughan
> libertarianism. Apart from all that I don't like about her (like her
> philosophy), she at least had the decency to be honest about her
> definitions and quite clear in her writings.
I'm not so sure about that. She didn't even get the definition of "selfish" right.
Rich
Mark Roddy
wrote:
>In article <39a731ec...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, jam...@echeque.com
You obviously don't understand that you have hit one of jimmy's
buttons, one which no amount of medication can inhibit the automatic
behavior that follows. Good luck!
Mark Roddy
Mark Roddy
>I am surprised to see James putting on a show of ignorance,
>since he has been one of the beneficiaries of prior articles
>of mine on this topic.
>
Why would that surprise you. Sounds like the standard operating
procedure to me.
Mark Roddy
Mark Roddy
(BertW) wrote:
>In article <39a25603...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald) wrote:
>> --
>>On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 02:44:52 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C.
>>Dege) wrote:
>>> There are voluntary communist communities,
>>
>>Really? Where.
>>
>
>Every family that I know of.
Actually, as my kids point out, most families are far from voluntary,
and generally at best are some sort of benevolent despotism.
Mark Roddy
Andrew J. Brehm
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 20:17:02 +0200, Andrew J. Brehm
> <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote: >Jeffrey C. Dege <jd...@jdege.visi.com>
> wrote: > >> I have to assume that there are some sorts of property that
> you do not >> allow to be privately owned. Otherwise we wouldn't be
> having this >> argument. > >Not neccessarily. It might just be a different
> concept of property >libertarian socialists advocate. Maybe you are
> entitled not to what you >produce, but to what you need?
>
> And who judges need?
The same authority that judges how much labour you need to invest to
make something unowned yours?
None?
James A. Donald
Thelonious Pepper:
> > > Neither school of thought calling itself "libertarian socialist"
> > > (Geoists, and Socialist-anarchists like Noam Chomsky) advocate
> > > straight socialism, so your point is obscure. But Chomsky
> > > generally gives lucid explanations of anything he tries to
> > > explain,
James A. Donald:
> > Let us once again recollect Chomsky's "clear and explicit"
> > explanation of what he meant by "the case of the missing
> > bloodbath"
> > <http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=576356905&fmt=text>
Thelonious Pepper:
> That URL points to a Usenet post by you which excerpts one or two
> phrases from Chomsky (over and over).
It also points to Chomsky's full article, and my full article.
So answer me. What did Chomsky mean by "the case of the missing
bloodbath"?
Answer me:
Does Chomsky admit or deny there was a bloodbath following the
communist victory in Vietnam and Cambodia? Is he saying there was no
bloodbath, that the bloodbath was literally missing? Or is he saying
that there may have been a bloodbath, but at the time the press should
have believed there was no bloodbath and said so? Or is he saying
that there may have been a bloodbath, but in 1977 there was no
evidence for a bloodbath, and therefore the press should have loudly
announced the absence of a bloodbath on the basis of absence of
evidence? Or is he saying that possibly there was a bloodbath, but at
that time he did deny there was a bloodbath and it was reasonable at
that time for him to have denied there was a bloodbath? Or is he
saying ...
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
Gjth/DRCtnh1lKl0OOroSZyxrx0jyYDMpouRfKFM
4Y9ujvyFj+TPBb+q0B3oTDbdVX48GDz5PDisj7WFT
Paul Gowder
Quite frankly, in addition to the garbage that she spouted in terms of
ideas, I don't know of a single person outside of the internet (and yes I
do have a life outside of the internet...) who believes that Ayn Rand could
write worth shit. For whatever you think of her idiotic philosophy, her
writing is ten times worse.
-P
--
Libertarians are not for free speech! See the proof:
http://www.themestream.com/gspd_browse/browse/view_article.gsp?c_id=143791
Why Campaign Finance Reform is consistent with Free Speech:
http://www.themestream.com/gspd_browse/browse/view_article.gsp?c_id=144498
The address "nu...@paultopia.net" goes directly to the trash.
(anti-spam mechanism) replace "null" with "paul" to reach me.
M. Simon
Brehm) wrote:
>M. Simon <msi...@xta.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 03:50:01 +0200, and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J.
>> Brehm) wrote:
>>
>> >Stvartak <stva...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> For the last time, there is no such thing as a libertarian socialist!
>> >
>> >Liar!
>> >
>> >> It's a
>> >> misnomer. What you are may be very noble and good, but to co-opt the word
>> >> "libertarian" is to deny the fundamental basis of socialism.
>> >
>> >Excuse me? How does "belief in the doctrine of free will" deny "public
>> >ownership of property"?
>> >
>> >In contrast I have seen so many "libertarians" defend their capitalist
>> >position on the basis of human nature, that I tend to believe that it is
>> >only logical to assume that if capitalism is a derivative of human
>> >nature, its opposite socialism (or communism) can well be a derivative
>> >of human nature's opposite: the free will.
>>
>>
>> The only free person in a socialist system is Stalin.
>>
>> And even he must be constantly watching his own back.
>
>Don't be smart on me.
>
>Either try to defend your position or admit you are wrong or don't know
>how to defend your position.
Even the head thief has to worry about the other thieves.
Socialism is based on theft.
Capitalism I admit is not so good. Many glaring defects. Socialism is
worse.
M. Simon Space-Time Productions http://www.spacetimepro.com
Free CNC Machine Control Software
Free Source Code
Control the World From a Parallel Port
G*rd*n
| >I am surprised to see James putting on a show of ignorance,
| >since he has been one of the beneficiaries of prior articles
| >of mine on this topic.
Mark Roddy <ma...@wattanuck.mv.com>:
| Why would that surprise you. Sounds like the standard operating
| procedure to me.
I am famed for a certain supercilious, snotty irony in some
quarters. And such fame requires diligent cultivation.
G*rd*n
| >>Dege) wrote:
| >>> There are voluntary communist communities,
(James A. Donald) wrote:
| >>Really? Where.
badber...@earthlingNOSPAM.net
| >Every family that I know of.
Mark Roddy <ma...@wattanuck.mv.com>:
| Actually, as my kids point out, most families are far from voluntary,
| and generally at best are some sort of benevolent despotism.
But they are, in fact, usually rather communistic. If they
operated on the principles of the so-called free market, all
the infants and small children would die, because they produce
nothing and have nothing to sell. Granny might hang on if
she kept a careful watch on her money bags, however.
Thelonious Pepper
(James A. Donald) wrote:
> --
> Thelonious Pepper:
> > > > Neither school of thought calling itself "libertarian socialist"
> > > > (Geoists, and Socialist-anarchists like Noam Chomsky) advocate
> > > > straight socialism, so your point is obscure. But Chomsky
> > > > generally gives lucid explanations of anything he tries to
> > > > explain,
>
> James A. Donald:
> > > Let us once again recollect Chomsky's "clear and explicit"
> > > explanation of what he meant by "the case of the missing
> > > bloodbath"
> > > <http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=576356905&fmt=text>
>
> Thelonious Pepper:
> > That URL points to a Usenet post by you which excerpts one or two
> > phrases from Chomsky (over and over).
>
> It also points to Chomsky's full article, and my full article.
>
> So answer me. What did Chomsky mean by "the case of the missing
> bloodbath"?
Who cares? Don't be obtuse. Whether Noam Chomsky is generally clear has
little to do with the meaning of some incomplete sentence you have
excerpted from somewhere and now produce in some sort of kooky triumph
of great personal meaning to you and no one else.
Gary McGuire
Paul Gowder wrote:
Â
Quite frankly, in addition to the garbage that she spouted in terms of
ideas, I don't know of a single person outside of the internet (and yes I
do have a life outside of the internet...) who believes that Ayn Rand could
write worth shit. For whatever you think of her idiotic philosophy, her
writing is ten times worse.
Â
What's so irritating about Ayn Rand's books is she may have twenty pages
that are really well written, followed by another ninety that don't deserve
first draft status.
I like Robert A. Heinlein's The
Moon Makes A Harsh Mistress.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312863551/o/qid=966824918/sr=2-1/002-6897845-2304829
His diatribes are more interesting and to the point with out the _repeat
problem_ Rand has, not to mention the story line is great
and the places and characters are still referred to in today's books.
Gary
Â
"Never try and teach a pig to sing: it's a waste of time, and it annoys the pig."
Time Enough for Love
Â
Jeffrey C. Dege
>Jeffrey C. Dege <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote:
>
>> And who judges need?
>
>The same authority that judges how much labour you need to invest to
>make something unowned yours?
>
>None?
Fine. Then I need everything.
--
The major advances in civilization are processes that all but wreck the
societies in which they occur.
-- A.N. Whitehead
Andrew J. Brehm
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 07:14:24 +0200, and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J.
> Brehm) wrote:
> >> The only free person in a socialist system is Stalin.
> >>
> >> And even he must be constantly watching his own back.
> >
> >Don't be smart on me.
> >
> >Either try to defend your position or admit you are wrong or don't know
> >how to defend your position.
>
> Even the head thief has to worry about the other thieves.
>
> Socialism is based on theft.
>
> Capitalism I admit is not so good. Many glaring defects. Socialism is
> worse.
I see you have made your choice.
Mantras instead of argument. Fine. But don't exspect me to believe any
of it.
Andrew J. Brehm
> "Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
> > A communist society could be reached by forcing you not to sell what you
> > acquire. Obviously this wouldn't be anarchism or libertarianism.
> >
>
> That's not a free society at all really.
I realize that. It is as unfree as a society in which capitalism is
forced upon people.
> I couldn't sell what I acquire, or
> employ anyone to tend a herd or even baby sit my children, unless for barter;
> and even that would be a transfer of wealth (probably illegal or against the
> nature of that systems ideology).
> It sounds like a very unworkable system; difficult to police.
That might have been why it failed. But then absolutism failed as well,
and for the same reason.
> > But imagine starting from a different point of view, a different set of
> > axioms, so to speak.
> >
> > "Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of
> > society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate
> > the labour of others by means of such appropriations." (Communist
> > Manifesto)
> >
> > There are _many_ different theories how property is created, how and why
> > it exists, what rights are related to it, and what it is for.
> >
> > Let's go from communism to capitalism:
> >
> > 1. All natural resources are owned by mankind in common, nobody can
> > claim private ownership beyond what he needs (anarcho-socialism).
> >
> > 2. All land is owned by mankind in common, nobody can claim more land
> > than his fair share. What goes beyond his share, he has to compensate
> > the others for the loss of. Other resources can be claimed as private
> > property (Georgism).
> >
> > 3. All natural resources can be claimed as long as nobody else's
> > situation is worsened by the appropriation or owning of the resource
> > (libertarianism).
> >
> > 4. All natural resources can be claimed as long as there is enough left
> > for others (classic liberalism).
> >
> > 5. All natural resources can be claimed as private property
> > (anarcho-capitalism).
> >
> > There is no reason to assume that any of these ideas are the truth,
> > since the only person who might know might not even exist.
Andrew J. Brehm
> I think the American version of Libertarianism is a better type of
> governing because it leaves liberty enough for communities to form like
> yours, if you freely contract to do so.
That depends on what type of "American version of Libertarianism" you
are refering to.
Nozick's type probably would. The anarcho-capitalist type probably
wouldn't.
> I don't think your version of government would be as liberal, do you?
My version of government would be what???
> As far as a states nature to grow and become oppressive, our version would
> seem to have a much less likely hood to become oppressive. What's more
> nice or fair at the time means little if you can't control the tools of
> the state (force); they in every instance in history have became corrupt.
> So really any, and every government will cycle.
I don't see any danger of government to become oppressive in your
version, but I do see the danger of corporations become oppressive if
government is not strong enough to stop them.
> In America we are supposed to have a great document to prevent government
> from getting so out of hand, but the congress doesn't fallow it, bill
> clinton for damn sure doesn't, and the judges put in place to enforce the
> meaning of the law don't, they say it doesn't mean what it says. No I'm
> not apathetic, I vote. I'm a realist.
If everything that is unowned can be claimed, what would be left for
those who don't believe they could claim things as theirs?
How could they survive without violating the property rights of the
other half?
What happened to nomadic tribes after more advanced tribes starting
claiming land as theirs?
What happened to peoples like the Sinti and the Roma who's individuals
did not own land and had thus no right to exist anywhere, because all
the land in Europe was eventually owned?
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>I don't see any danger of government to become oppressive in your
>version, but I do see the danger of corporations become oppressive if
>government is not strong enough to stop them.
Corporations exist by government license. They are created by government,
and can be destroyed by government.
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that worked ...A complex system designed from scratch never
works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over,
beginning with a working simple system.
-- Grady Booch
Matt
<bsh...@home.com> wrote:
> > > What does "a market for law" mean?
> >
> > It means private firms would produce theories of law. If people
> > find one theory attractive, they could subscribe to it by selecting
> > that firm as an arbitrator. Firms that produce unattractive law
> > lose profits; firms that produce attractive law succeed.
> The firms would merely arbitrate? Law usually has an enforcement
> component.
Yes. I was addressing the question about law, not law enforcement.
In anarcho-capitalism there are enforcement organizations, which are
independent from arbitrators (similar to the way there is a separation
of powers in modern democracies, except in anarcho-capitalism the
organizations are not part of the same larger organization).
> The scenario you describe has no protections against the abuse of
> minorities, and (this is related) no recognition of natural rights.
Since this system is not majoritarian, as democracy is, I'm not sure how
you came to that conclusion. But I'm not sure you have much basis for
judging the scenario I describe, because (1) I did not say much in
describing it, and (2) you did not appear to see the web page I linked
to. If you did, I think you would know something about how enforcement
would work.
> What about the theory of law that there should be one judicial system
> per jurisdiction?
Not my theory. :-)
> Depending on how one spins the senses of the words you're using, it may
> be possible to describe our current system as a "a market for law"? What
> do people every time they vote? They choose (like a consumer of law) a
> system.
Yes, good point. David Friedman describes the political system in those
terms--but this particular kind of market is not like other markets.
One important difference is that an individual consumer in the political
market has negligible chance of determining the outcome, meaning he does
not internalize the costs and benefits of his decisions in the way he
does when he buys a car or a computer.
--
"Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity."
-- Marshall McLuhan
Left-Libertarian
news:39a485c2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> --
> In article <8nn973$20pa$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>, "Stvartak"
> <stva...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> > > For the last time, there is no such thing as a libertarian socialist!
>
> > For the last time, yes there is.
>
> No "libertarian" socialist has ever given a coherent explanation of
> how to have socialism without a central planning apparatus.
Not true. See http://www.parecon.org for one.
Matt
<bsh...@home.com> wrote:
> Who cares? Don't be obtuse. Whether Noam Chomsky is generally clear has
> little to do with the meaning of some incomplete sentence you have
> excerpted from somewhere and now produce in some sort of kooky triumph
> of great personal meaning to you and no one else.
I think Chomsky is often very unclear, sometimes intentionally so, and I
think his encounter with James is revealing. Chomsky announced he was
being clear and explicit, yet his acolytes, despite being repeatedly
challenged, have been unable to say what he was clear and explicit
about.
Chomsky can write forcefully and persuasively, but he won't let you pin
him down to any particular position--particularly when it would
embarrass him if you could.
Gary McGuire
"Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
Gary McGuire <2mon...@home.com> wrote:> I think the American version of Libertarianism is a better type of
> governing because it leaves liberty enough for communities to form like
> yours, if you freely contract to do so.That depends on what type of "American version of Libertarianism" you
are refering to.Nozick's type probably would. The anarcho-capitalist type probably
wouldn't.
I'm pretty close to party line on my views; much like Browne, or David Boaz that wrote "Libertarianism A Primer". It's a pretty good read. I bought the audio book version a while back to donate it to the local library after I got back from vacation, but so far I just lend it out to people I know.Â
Â> I don't think your version of government would be as liberal, do you?
My version of government would be what???
You can put you own label on it, but I have a pretty good idea of your philosophies on property rights and other things while following these ng. for a couple of years, and reading your posts. You at one time said you were open to other ideas; however... Two years isn't much time to sway very far left or right I guess.
Â
> As far as a states nature to grow and become oppressive, our version would
> seem to have a much less likely hood to become oppressive. What's more
> nice or fair at the time means little if you can't control the tools of
> the state (force); they in every instance in history have became corrupt.
> So really any, and every government will cycle.I don't see any danger of government to become oppressive in your
version, but I do see the danger of corporations become oppressive if
government is not strong enough to stop them.
Â
I guess that is where I have a ounce of anarch in my blood. The people
can and do rise to the
occasion at times, and will again.
Â
> In America we are supposed to have a great document to prevent government
> from getting so out of hand, but the congress doesn't fallow it, bill
> clinton for damn sure doesn't, and the judges put in place to enforce the
> meaning of the law don't, they say it doesn't mean what it says. No I'm
> not apathetic, I vote. I'm a realist.If everything that is unowned can be claimed, what would be left for
those who don't believe they could claim things as theirs?
First off, that would be a poor way to bring up a child into believing
that. If you teach your children to work hard
and learn, and educate himself, pay attention to studies he will be
of more value, and can earn more the more he improves himself.Â
Teaching children the value of work and earning is essential, we all know
that; don't we?
The first thing that came to mind when I read that statement some time
ago was of the homestead properties in upper Michigan; free if you lived
there or kept residence there for ten years. They were something like ten
acres each.
Â
Â
How could they survive without violating the property rights of the
other half?
Get a job? They really don't need to I guess, they can stand on the corner
and beg a couple of hours a day
to fill their belly; as many do.
ÂWhat happened to nomadic tribes after more advanced tribes starting
claiming land as theirs?
Â
Fought like cats and dogs? That was then, now we get a mortgage?
Â
Â
What happened to peoples like the Sinti and the Roma who's individuals
did not own land and had thus no right to exist anywhere, because all
the land in Europe was eventually owned?
Â
I'm not familiar with those tribes; but did you know the Great Horned owls
are killing off the endangered
Northern spotted owl? Is there a lesson here? Adapt to you environment
or become and endangered species?
If you can't beatem _____?
Gary
It seemed the world was divided into good and bad people. The good ones
slept better ... while the bad ones seemed to enjoy the waking hours much
more. - Woody Allen, "Side Effects" 1981
Â
Â
Andrew J. Brehm
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 00:59:53 +0200, Andrew J. Brehm
> <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote: >Jeffrey C. Dege <jd...@jdege.visi.com>
> wrote: > >> And who judges need? > >The same authority that judges how
> much labour you need to invest to >make something unowned yours? > >None?
>
> Fine. Then I need everything.
And I have acquired the Atlantic Ocean since several years ago I spilled
some coke in it, and I assume it has completely mixed up by now, which
means that my labour (which I gave in exchange for the coke) is now
mixed up with the entire ocean.
I guess it makes more sense to decide a bit more careful what the limits
are.
Thelonious Pepper
<matt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <bsharvy-3FDAAB.10452120082000@news>, Thelonious Pepper
> <bsh...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > > > What does "a market for law" mean?
> > >
> > > It means private firms would produce theories of law. If people
> > > find one theory attractive, they could subscribe to it by selecting
> > > that firm as an arbitrator. Firms that produce unattractive law
> > > lose profits; firms that produce attractive law succeed.
>
> > The firms would merely arbitrate? Law usually has an enforcement
> > component.
>
> Yes. I was addressing the question about law, not law enforcement.
Enforcement is what distinguishes law from mere arbitration. The "firms"
that you describe have nothing to do with law.
> In anarcho-capitalism there are enforcement organizations, which are
> independent from arbitrators (similar to the way there is a separation
> of powers in modern democracies, except in anarcho-capitalism the
> organizations are not part of the same larger organization).
>
> > The scenario you describe has no protections against the abuse of
> > minorities, and (this is related) no recognition of natural rights.
>
> Since this system is not majoritarian, as democracy is, I'm not sure how
> you came to that conclusion.
A theory of law which permits persecution of a minority group for the
benefit of a majority could plausibly reap the most profits.
> > What about the theory of law that there should be one judicial system
> > per jurisdiction?
>
> Not my theory. :-)
Is it a "theory of law" which could be "sold" to people, in the manner
you describe above?
--
Socialist-Libertarians | Edible Landscaping | Burn the Flag Online
Male Lesbians | Is Abortion Moral? | Crunchy Pickle Software
http://www.efn.org/~bsharvy/
mikel
<bsh...@home.com> wrote:
> In article <matth2000-DAAE8...@supernews.110.net>, Matt
> <matt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <bsharvy-3FDAAB.10452120082000@news>, Thelonious Pepper
> > <bsh...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > What does "a market for law" mean?
> > > >
> > > > It means private firms would produce theories of law. If people
> > > > find one theory attractive, they could subscribe to it by selecting
> > > > that firm as an arbitrator. Firms that produce unattractive law
> > > > lose profits; firms that produce attractive law succeed.
> >
> > > The firms would merely arbitrate? Law usually has an enforcement
> > > component.
> >
> > Yes. I was addressing the question about law, not law enforcement.
>
> Enforcement is what distinguishes law from mere arbitration. The "firms"
> that you describe have nothing to do with law.
In some historically-existing systems of law, arbitration is one element
of the apparatus of enforcement. In most customary law systems, for
example, and in other systems of law (such as the Law Merchant) that
resemble them, enforcement is a matter of challenging a defendant to
appear before a mutually-agreeable arbitrator and accept its judgement.
In general the alternative is sufficiently unpleasant that the vast
majority of people thus challenged accept, but everyone has the option
to refuse. Thus, such systems of law are entirely voluntary.
That a system of law in this mold could include private arbitration
firms and private security agencies is more than thinkable -- some
historically-existing systems of law have operated more or less in this
fashion. For example, Anglo-Saxons decided matters of law in private
courts according to laws enforced by privately-finded surety
associations.
> > In anarcho-capitalism there are enforcement organizations, which are
> > independent from arbitrators (similar to the way there is a separation
> > of powers in modern democracies, except in anarcho-capitalism the
> > organizations are not part of the same larger organization).
> >
> > > The scenario you describe has no protections against the abuse of
> > > minorities, and (this is related) no recognition of natural rights.
> >
> > Since this system is not majoritarian, as democracy is, I'm not sure
> > how
> > you came to that conclusion.
>
> A theory of law which permits persecution of a minority group for the
> benefit of a majority could plausibly reap the most profits.
But such a system makes each person pay for the enforcement he wants,
whereas a democratic monopoly system makes each person pay for the
enforcement that the majority wants. So if your objection applies to the
sort of system Matt imagines, it applies with greater force to a
democratic system. If Matt's system is bad, a democratic system is worse.
Compare the production of the good 'justice' to the production of some
other good that is produced on the market today. Let's use books as an
example. Suppose that, instead of producing books on the market -- with
many competing firms vending whatever ideas they think the general
public will want to buy, instead the books to be published will be
decided democratically by a majority vote, perhaps according to some
constitutional rules about what information is to be distributed or how
that determination is to be made. Will this state of affairs be an
improvement over the production of books in the market? Will the
production of justice be different from the production of books? If so,
why?
> > > What about the theory of law that there should be one judicial system
> > > per jurisdiction?
> >
> > Not my theory. :-)
>
> Is it a "theory of law" which could be "sold" to people, in the manner
> you describe above?
You could try selling it. What are its selling points? Maybe you could
start by defining 'judicial system' and 'jurisdiction', since, on its
face, your 'theory' kind of looks like a tautology.
--
mikel evins
mi...@reactivity.com
Ravachol
> --
>On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 02:44:52 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C.
>Dege) wrote:
>> There are voluntary communist communities,
>
In Israel. some kibbutzim linked to the Mapam-party.
--
Niek Holtzappel.
Homepage: http://www.xs4all.nl/~nholtz
For replying: Remove NOSPAM from "Reply-To:" field.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Einer der manchmal lacht ist glücklich, einer der nur lacht ist
gefährlich."
Nietsche ?, Nein... Tampert.
------------------------------------------------------------------
G*rd*n
| >| Then if _I_ have control over my clothing, then your Libertarian Socialism
| >| _does_, in fact, allow for private ownership of property.
| >|
| >| I have to assume that there are some sorts of property that you do
| >| not allow to be privately owned. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this
| >| argument.
| >|
| >| property?
G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote:
| >Just as a matter of vocabulary, _socialism_ is usually defined
| >as control of the _means_of_production_ by the working class,
| >or the people generally. It's not a species of communism,
| >which is what seems to be understood above.
| >
| >One can argue about just what the "means of production" are,
| >but it's a considerable stretch to include consumer goods
| >like clothing, or parts of one's body. That seems kind of,
| >well, obtuse, as a matter of fact.
jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege):
| That there is some sort of clear qualitative difference between property
| that is a "means of production" and property that is merely a consumer
| good is rather naive.
I don't think so, unless you just happen to like metaphorization
run wild. Given sufficient relaxation of meaning, _anything_
can become a "means of production" -- the moon that decorates
the waves of the lake at night, for example. How much time
do you want to spend on this sort of thing?
| Does my 1/4" drill count as a means of production? My desktop lathe?
| My personal computer?
I would say that the ownership of the means of production
becomes politically interesting to the extent that one person
owns and controls what another normally uses to produce things.
And here, I'm talking about whatever people think they need
badly enough to work for. In a modern industrial society,
the means of production are generally called "capital" and
are typically owned or controlled by a small number of persons,
to wit, the bourgeoisie, who as a result of their ownership
or control also get to be the ruling class. This is the model
socialists concern themselves with, not private property in
general. Thus, they would have little to recommend for a
feudal or tribal society (other than to transform it into an
industrial-capitalist model as soon as possible, as Lenin
and Stalin did to Russia).
I recognize that historically socialists, like liberals,
have generally ignored vernacular production like child care,
housework, home repair, and so on. I don't think this
affects the distinction I was trying to make above.
Highlander
Gary McGuire <2mon...@home.com> wrote in message news:39A09A02...@home.com...
Michael S. Lorrey
>
> Gary McGuire <2mon...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > "Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
> > > A communist society could be reached by forcing you not to sell what you
> > > acquire. Obviously this wouldn't be anarchism or libertarianism.
> > >
> >
> > That's not a free society at all really.
>
> I realize that. It is as unfree as a society in which capitalism is
> forced upon people.
And HOW, pray tell, is capitalism 'forced' on people? There are many
communes in the big bad capitalist US that are entirely voluntary. Far
more than in involuntary socialist and communist states. If you don't
want to live under capitalism, go live on a commune, or start one.
--
TANSTAAFL
Mike Lorrey
"In the end more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. When
the
Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give
to
them, when the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility,
then
Athens ceased to be free." --- Edward Gibbon (1737-1794)
"A person who wants a society that is both safe and free, wants what
never
has been, and what never will be." --- Thomas Jefferson
"It's a Republic, if you can keep it..." --- Benjamin Franklin
Michael S. Lorrey
> > seem to have a much less likely hood to become oppressive. What's more
> > nice or fair at the time means little if you can't control the tools of
> > the state (force); they in every instance in history have became corrupt.
> > So really any, and every government will cycle.
>
> I don't see any danger of government to become oppressive in your
> version, but I do see the danger of corporations become oppressive if
> government is not strong enough to stop them.
If corporations do not have the legal protections that governments
provide them, then they are very weak legalistically speaking, both from
a liability standpoint, and from its ability to enforce contracts.
>
> > In America we are supposed to have a great document to prevent government
> > from getting so out of hand, but the congress doesn't fallow it, bill
> > clinton for damn sure doesn't, and the judges put in place to enforce the
> > meaning of the law don't, they say it doesn't mean what it says. No I'm
> > not apathetic, I vote. I'm a realist.
>
> If everything that is unowned can be claimed, what would be left for
> those who don't believe they could claim things as theirs?
If they don't claim it, and don't beleive in claiming things, then they
obviously must not need it.
>
> How could they survive without violating the property rights of the
> other half?
Go work for them....
>
> What happened to nomadic tribes after more advanced tribes starting
> claiming land as theirs?
They settled down and adopted the technological society that allows more
efficient use of the land.
>
> What happened to peoples like the Sinti and the Roma who's individuals
> did not own land and had thus no right to exist anywhere, because all
> the land in Europe was eventually owned?
They are still there, more or less settled down, and buying land and
earning their right to exist.
James A. Donald
James A Donald:
> > So answer me. What did Chomsky mean by "the case of the missing
> > bloodbath"?
On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 02:22:33 GMT, Thelonious Pepper <bsh...@home.com>
wrote:
> Who cares? Don't be obtuse. Whether Noam Chomsky is generally clear
> has little to do with the meaning of some incomplete sentence you
> have excerpted from somewhere and now produce in some sort of kooky
> triumph of great personal meaning to you and no one else.
Untrue:
In <http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=576356905&fmt=text>
I quoted a full page of Chomsky, not an incomplete sentence, a full
page in which he used the phrase "case of the missing bloodbath"
repeatedly, supposedly explaining the meaning of this phrase, and gave
a link to the full article in which he supposedly explains the
meaning, and challenged you to answer a few simple questions about
what he meant.
Every time that somone announces that Chomksy is clear, I repost this.
In the page of Chomsky that I quote in
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=576356905&fmt=text> he
confidently announces that he was perfectly clear and explicit about
what he meant by the case of the missing bloodbath, gives a long rant
about "the case of the missing bloodbath, and concludes
: : That's the "case of the missing bloodbath."
I then ask the reader a few simple questions about what this self
contradictory rant means, questions that no one has been able to
answer.
Matt summarizes the rant as follows.
: : It seemed perfectly clear and explicit to me. Of course I
: : had no idea what he said.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
Bta/zvp3MDUXaGn/zcl60bKUAWpUjKroL6Jt5Mhw
4tc8fmaNjpjz4KTlWRWI0k/VHQrv/9Mi/CroHedWS
Matt
"Left-Libertarian" <left_lib...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Parecon's "Iteration Facilitation Board" and the higher production and
consumer councils equate to a central planning apparatus.
G*rd*n
Thelonious Pepper <bsh...@home.com>:
| Who cares? Don't be obtuse. Whether Noam Chomsky is generally clear has
| little to do with the meaning of some incomplete sentence you have
| excerpted from somewhere and now produce in some sort of kooky triumph
| of great personal meaning to you and no one else.
It would probably be more accurate to say, "to you and a small
circle of enemies." Pol-Potting Noam Chomsky has become a
sort of cult practice, which, like some marginal communities
of odd sexual practice, is sort of interesting the first time
you hear about it, but becomes less so with each successive
iteration.
Nathan Folkert
[ ... ]
> If corporations do not have the legal protections that governments
> provide them, then they are very weak legalistically speaking, both from
> a liability standpoint, and from its ability to enforce contracts.
If corporations did not have the legal restrictions that governments
impose on them, then there is very little, legalistically speaking,
preventing them from building the resources to enforce their contracts in
any arbitrary manner they choose. You see, it works both ways.
[ ... ]
> > What happened to nomadic tribes after more advanced tribes starting
> > claiming land as theirs?
>
> They settled down and adopted the technological society that allows more
> efficient use of the land.
Yes, the vast majority of them use the land in the most efficient way that
the technological societies saw fit for them -- six feet under it.
Nathan Folkert
nfol...@cs.stanford.edu
http://www.stanford.edu/~nfolkert
*************************************************************
* He counted out his money, and it made a pretty penny, *
* I put it in my pocket, and gave it to my Jenny, *
* She sighed and she swore that she never would deceive me, *
* But the devil take the women for they never can be easy *
* Musha ring dum a doo dum a da, *
* Whack fol de daddy o *
* Whack fol de daddy o *
* There's whiskey in the jar! *
*************************************************************
- Whiskey in the Jar
Andrew J. Brehm
> "Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
> >
> > Gary McGuire <2mon...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
> > > > A communist society could be reached by forcing you not to sell what you
> > > > acquire. Obviously this wouldn't be anarchism or libertarianism.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That's not a free society at all really.
> >
> > I realize that. It is as unfree as a society in which capitalism is
> > forced upon people.
>
> And HOW, pray tell, is capitalism 'forced' on people? There are many
> communes in the big bad capitalist US that are entirely voluntary. Far
> more than in involuntary socialist and communist states. If you don't
> want to live under capitalism, go live on a commune, or start one.
To start a commune you need resources. Most if not all natural resources
are in the hands of capitalists. And you tell me capitalism is not
forced on me?
It seems that I _have_ to deal with capitalists in order to acquire
resources of the very planet I live on. Resources I have no reason to
believe they have any more right to than I do.
Andrew J. Brehm
> "Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
> > If everything that is unowned can be claimed, what would be left for
> > those who don't believe they could claim things as theirs?
>
> If they don't claim it, and don't beleive in claiming things, then they
> obviously must not need it.
That's exactly the capitalist attitude that makes people servants. Why
don't you just leave people alone? Why do you have to assume what they
require or need, and that when they disagree with you about whether
objects may be claimed you have every right to take these resources away
from them?
If you believe in freedom, you might also believe that it is morally
wrong to limit freedom. Excluding others from having access to a
resource is a limitation of freedom. Some people might just not want to
do that. And they certainly would not want you to do it instead.
> > How could they survive without violating the property rights of the
> > other half?
>
> Go work for them....
Servitude? Work for another person in order to be granted the right to
access resources again? A right they already had before the other
individual took it from them?
> > What happened to nomadic tribes after more advanced tribes starting
> > claiming land as theirs?
>
> They settled down and adopted the technological society that allows more
> efficient use of the land.
You have a funny view of history.
They bloody died at the hand of the settlers!
This is what history looks like.
> > What happened to peoples like the Sinti and the Roma who's individuals
> > did not own land and had thus no right to exist anywhere, because all
> > the land in Europe was eventually owned?
>
> They are still there, more or less settled down, and buying land and
> earning their right to exist.
So now they are buying the very land they always walked on from people
who have no more right to the land thean they did?
So basically they are giving money for nothing?
Matt
> Thelonious Pepper <bsh...@home.com>:
> | Who cares? Don't be obtuse. Whether Noam Chomsky is generally clear has
> | little to do with the meaning of some incomplete sentence you have
> | excerpted from somewhere and now produce in some sort of kooky triumph
> | of great personal meaning to you and no one else.
>
> It would probably be more accurate to say, "to you and a small
> circle of enemies." Pol-Potting Noam Chomsky has become a
> sort of cult practice, which, like some marginal communities
> of odd sexual practice, is sort of interesting the first time
> you hear about it, but becomes less so with each successive
> iteration.
As David Friedman rather eloquently argues:
As you have surely noticed, one problem in political arguments is
that the world is a complicated place, so that what seem clear
facts with clear implications to one side of an argument can
vanish into a haze of uncertainty with dizzying speed under
criticism by the other side.
What is useful about Chomsky, for purposes of this discussion, is
that he coauthored a book which contains a chapter that any
honest, reasonable and unbiased reader (a category which does not,
of course, include everyone on Usenet) will conclude was intended
as a defense of the Khmer Rouge against charges being made when
the book was written--principally the charge that they were
deliberately killing very large numbers of people. The fact that
the Khmer Rouge were in fact deliberately killing very large
numbers of people at the time is now almost undisputed (there are
a few holdouts)--in particular, it is accepted by most people
across the political spectrum, in part because it happened and in
part because a state more popular with the left used the Khmer
Rouge democide as part of its justification for invading Cambodia.
Combining the facts of Chomsky's chapter with the fact of current
views on what happened in Cambodia gives us an unusually clear
case--roughly the equivalent of the case we would have against a
prominent intellectual who had written defenses of Hitler's
Germany in 1944. Clear cases are useful in political arguments.
This one forces people to either take a position very unpopular
with the left--that Chomsky really was an apologist for mass
murder or, at the best, a dupe who has refused to admit he was
duped--or else to engage in implausible contortions trying to deny
that position.
Hence the attention paid to "denouncing Chomsky."
Paul Gate
Michael S. Lorrey <retr...@turbont.net> wrote in message news:39A13174...@turbont.net...
> If they don't claim it, and don't beleive in claiming things, then they
> obviously must not need it.
ohhh OBVIOUSLY..i mean its self evident
If a person does not make a property claim on water
then obviously their biochemistry is peculiar and
they do not need to drink like normal humans..
And a person who has made no property claim to land has no need
for land because he can hover a metre above the ground like
superman , obviously
Obviously we have entered the land of tortuous rationalisation
where absolutely anything is obvious
> > How could they survive without violating the property rights of the
> > other half?
>
> Go work for them....
Er so your only recomendation is that these people prostrate themselves before
others, to survive?
i think this was the original posters point..
> > What happened to peoples like the Sinti and the Roma who's individuals
> > did not own land and had thus no right to exist anywhere, because all
> > the land in Europe was eventually owned?
>
> They are still there, more or less settled down, and buying land and
> earning their right to exist.
Once again you have made your opponents point painfully clear
"earning the right to exist" says it all..
Quite who owns these peoples right to exist so that these people must earn it
from them, is left unexplained..Perhaps you could tell us who owns these
peoples right to exist, why these peole must earn this right from the legitimate
owners and how these legitimate owners became the owners of such property
as anothers persons right to exist.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>Jeffrey C. Dege <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 00:59:53 +0200, Andrew J. Brehm
>> <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote: >Jeffrey C. Dege <jd...@jdege.visi.com>
>> wrote: > >> And who judges need? > >The same authority that judges how
>> much labour you need to invest to >make something unowned yours? > >None?
>>
>> Fine. Then I need everything.
>
>And I have acquired the Atlantic Ocean since several years ago I spilled
>some coke in it, and I assume it has completely mixed up by now, which
>means that my labour (which I gave in exchange for the coke) is now
>mixed up with the entire ocean.
>
>I guess it makes more sense to decide a bit more careful what the limits
>are.
What makes sense is to be very explict about how the limits are
determined, and who judges borderline cases.
It is in these details that we find the distinctions between freedom
and liberty.
--
It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more
doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage, than the creation of
a new system. For the initiator has the emnity of all who would profit
by the preservation of the old institutions and merely lukewarm defenders
in those who would gain by the new ones.
-- Niccolo Machiavelli, 1513
Jeffrey C. Dege
>jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege):
>| That there is some sort of clear qualitative difference between property
>| that is a "means of production" and property that is merely a consumer
>| good is rather naive.
>
>| My personal computer?
>
>I would say that the ownership of the means of production
>becomes politically interesting to the extent that one person
>owns and controls what another normally uses to produce things.
>And here, I'm talking about whatever people think they need
>badly enough to work for. In a modern industrial society,
>the means of production are generally called "capital" and
>are typically owned or controlled by a small number of persons,
>to wit, the bourgeoisie, who as a result of their ownership
>or control also get to be the ruling class. This is the model
>socialists concern themselves with, not private property in
>general. Thus, they would have little to recommend for a
>feudal or tribal society (other than to transform it into an
>industrial-capitalist model as soon as possible, as Lenin
>and Stalin did to Russia).
So if I buy a computer, a scanner, and a printer, and write a program that
converts images into needlepoint patterns, and go into business converting
people's family photos into needlepoint patterns, everything is fine.
But if I hire someone to run the system so that I can concetrate on the
advertising and marketing side of the business, I'm suddenly a plutocrat,
and you expect me to give the computer and the software to the person
I hire, because she is the worker, and she should own the means of
production?
Paul Gate
Jeffrey C. Dege <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote in message news:slrn8q2vh8...@jdege.visi.com...
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 07:53:19 +0200, Andrew J. Brehm <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote:
> >Jeffrey C. Dege <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 00:59:53 +0200, Andrew J. Brehm
> >> <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote: >Jeffrey C. Dege <jd...@jdege.visi.com>
> >> wrote: > >> And who judges need? > >The same authority that judges how
> >> much labour you need to invest to >make something unowned yours? > >None?
> >>
> >> Fine. Then I need everything.
> >
> >And I have acquired the Atlantic Ocean since several years ago I spilled
> >some coke in it, and I assume it has completely mixed up by now, which
> >means that my labour (which I gave in exchange for the coke) is now
> >mixed up with the entire ocean.
> >
> >I guess it makes more sense to decide a bit more careful what the limits
> >are.
>
> determined, and who judges borderline cases.
No..the whole concept is entire pigs water
Instead of fixing complicated bandages to your idea ,
go back to the drawing board and try to come up with something
that actualy makes sense
Paul Gate
M. Simon <msi...@xta.com> wrote in message news:39a1dce1...@news.xta.com...
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 06:01:53 +0200, and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J.
> Brehm) wrote:
>
> >M. Simon <msi...@xta.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 07:14:24 +0200, and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J.
> >> Brehm) wrote:
>
> Well lets see you make your argument so I have a chance to rebut it.
>
> So far as I can see so far I have proved socialism is based on theft
> because it uses governmental gunpower to redistribute wealth.
>
> Since you have presented no counter argument we can take it as a point
> proved.
Imo the only chance socialism has here to defend itself is if it can show
that gunpowder was used unfairly in the aquisition and holding of the
resources used to create the wealth, that is now being stolen
I know to "wrongs" don`t make a "right" but they could make an "ok"
Thelonious Pepper
(James A. Donald) wrote:
> In <http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=576356905&fmt=text>
> I quoted a full page of Chomsky, not an incomplete sentence,
If you quoted a complete page of Chomsky, that is unclear in the text.
The problem may be due to the formatting, rather than your writing. For
example, it is completely uncelar whether all this is authored by you...
The smaller, but still quite impressive blood bath in Vietnam is less
well known, despite the vast number of Vietnamese refugees who fled the
terror. Chomsky responds in that he was "clear and explicit", but
neglects to explain what he was "clear and explicit" about: Herman and I
were clear and explicit about this, not only in the article cited, but
elsewhere repeatedly. In brief, from the early days of the Vietnam war,
the standard justification....
Who are "Herman and I"? Usually, when quoting, one uses quote marks or
indents the paragraph.... Again, *your* article, which you keep citing,
is really difficult to follow (which may explain why you can't get
anybody to respond to it).
> .... and gave
> a link to the full article in which he supposedly explains the
> meaning
I have seen no link to a full article. I saw a link to your home-page,
which appears to have roughly 40 links.
Thelonious Pepper
<mi...@reactivity.com> wrote:
> In article <bsharvy-201A99.23115720082000@news>, Thelonious Pepper
> <bsh...@home.com> wrote:
> > Enforcement is what distinguishes law from mere arbitration. The
> > "firms" that you describe have nothing to do with law.
> ...enforcement is a matter of challenging a defendant to
> appear before a mutually-agreeable arbitrator and accept its judgement.
> In general the alternative is sufficiently unpleasant that the vast
> majority of people thus challenged accept, but everyone has the option
> to refuse. Thus, such systems of law are entirely voluntary.
That is a system of dispute resolution (arbitration), which is not the
same as law. One problem with an arbitration system, illustrating how it
is not identical with a system of law, is that I can ignore the demand
for arbitration, which I may do if have a lot of power or guns, or
suspect that no fair arbitrator would side with me, or suspect that
there are no fair arbitrators.
> > > > The scenario you describe has no protections against the abuse of
> > > > minorities, and (this is related) no recognition of natural rights.
> > >
> > > Since this system is not majoritarian, as democracy is, I'm not sure
> > > how you came to that conclusion.
A constutional democracy has protections for minorities, in its
recognition of fundamental rights.
> > A theory of law which permits persecution of a minority group for the
> > benefit of a majority could plausibly reap the most profits.
>
> But such a system makes each person pay for the enforcement he wants,
So how do the poor get justice? By depending on the charity (welfare) of
the rich? Certainly, a system like that could protect the poor
adequately....
> whereas a democratic monopoly system makes each person pay for the
> enforcement that the majority wants. So if your objection applies to the
> sort of system Matt imagines, it applies with greater force to a
> democratic system.
No, because a democratic system can be founded on principles of natural
rights, and make guarantees that basic dignities will be resepcected.
There is no such mechanism in the "market for law" model.
> > > > What about the theory of law that there should be one judicial
> > > > system
> > > > per jurisdiction?
> > >
> > > Not my theory. :-)
> >
> > Is it a "theory of law" which could be "sold" to people, in the manner
> > you describe above?
>
> You could try selling it. What are its selling points?
Beats me. Ask the people who keep voting for it....
G*rd*n
| >I recognize that historically socialists, like liberals,
| >have generally ignored vernacular production like child care,
| >housework, home repair, and so on. I don't think this
| >affects the distinction I was trying to make above.
msi...@xta.com (M. Simon):
| New machine tools (mills, lathes, computers with printers) are
| available for less than the cost of a very cheap car each.
|
| Or a moderately expensive one all together.
|
| Automating these tools can be done for about $2K each.
|
| With those tools you can be a maker for 5 - 10K. Not insurmountable
| for a dedicated poor person in America.
|
| There are about 10 - 20 million Pentium 75 & 90 computers being made
| available to the poor as they become obsolete for business.
|
| My company alone is giving away 200 - 400 machines a week locally. (a
| town of 160,00 ) The local charities are having trouble finding enough
| recipients. At the above rate EVERY person in the bottom 20% of the
| economy locally will have a computer in 2 years. Every family in that
| range will have one in six to nine months locally. From our company
| alone.
|
| So the computers are esentially free.
|
| The rest takes only education and desire.
We'll probably see whether the economy has changed structurally
in the near future. Some say it has, others are dubious.
Normally, a surplus of anything in an industrial economy leads
to a crisis for the owners or producers of it. If we have a
surplus of capital -- which is what your remarks about machine
tools and computers seem to indicate -- then the crisis will
be profound indeed, because those who make their living through
the ownership and control of capital will be out of business.
Since such people are now and have been for some time the
dominant class of our society, the implications are revolutionary.
(Where would people like Bush and Gore be without big money?)
Such crises have occurred in the past and have been accompanied
by wars and major depressions as the economy is restructured
and scarcity reinstituted, perhaps on a new level.
But is this what's really happening? The current boom seems
to be fueled by a steady decline in the rate of savings
accumulation, now negative, which doesn't seem to indicate
any burgeoning of capital. Once the spare change runs out,
a recession, rather than a major bust, would be expected.
I guess we'll soon find out.
G*rd*n
| >| That there is some sort of clear qualitative difference between property
| >| that is a "means of production" and property that is merely a consumer
| >| good is rather naive.
| >
| >| Does my 1/4" drill count as a means of production? My desktop lathe?
| >| My personal computer?
G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote:
| >I would say that the ownership of the means of production
| >becomes politically interesting to the extent that one person
| >owns and controls what another normally uses to produce things.
| >And here, I'm talking about whatever people think they need
| >badly enough to work for. In a modern industrial society,
| >the means of production are generally called "capital" and
| >are typically owned or controlled by a small number of persons,
| >to wit, the bourgeoisie, who as a result of their ownership
| >or control also get to be the ruling class. This is the model
| >socialists concern themselves with, not private property in
| >general. Thus, they would have little to recommend for a
| >feudal or tribal society (other than to transform it into an
| >industrial-capitalist model as soon as possible, as Lenin
| >and Stalin did to Russia).
jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege):
| So if I buy a computer, a scanner, and a printer, and write a program that
| converts images into needlepoint patterns, and go into business converting
| people's family photos into needlepoint patterns, everything is fine.
| But if I hire someone to run the system so that I can concetrate on the
| advertising and marketing side of the business, I'm suddenly a plutocrat,
| and you expect me to give the computer and the software to the person
| I hire, because she is the worker, and she should own the means of
| production?
I don't expect you to do anything -- I don't know you from
Adam. However, if you want to live a free society, and you
own all the capital, you'll have to do something about the
power difference between yourself and the others. Otherwise
you'll be surrounded by servants, sycophants, slaves and con
men, with the wolves of _ressentiment_ glowering in the
outer darkness. It's not a pretty picture, but it's sure a
familiar one.
Andrew J. Brehm
> Michael S. Lorrey <retr...@turbont.net> wrote in message
> news:39A13174...@turbont.net... > They are still there, more or less
> settled down, and buying land and > earning their right to exist.
>
> Once again you have made your opponents point painfully clear
>
> "earning the right to exist" says it all..
>
> Quite who owns these peoples right to exist so that these people must earn
> it from them, is left unexplained..Perhaps you could tell us who owns
> these peoples right to exist, why these peole must earn this right from
> the legitimate owners and how these legitimate owners became the owners of
> such property as anothers persons right to exist.
Yepp, this guy (Michael) made quite clear what I meant.
If we believe in individual rights, why do we not believe that everybody
who exists has a right to exist, but needs to buy it from others
instead?
I thought we abandoned absolutism a long time ago. And some day we might
also be able to abandon the last remains of absolutism.
I see a future in which all men have a right to exist, not just some, or
one.
(I wonder why some people have to earn a right to exist, while others
don't even have to earn the right not only to their own, but apparently
also to other people's existance.)