trc (02/23/83)
To understand what is wrong with Socialism, one cannot start at its products and work down. It is necessary to go the the roots, and try to see how the products are a natural result of those roots. To get at the roots, it is necessary to ask some very basic questions. Does a human being have a right to live? I think that this can be given an unqualified YES for normal humans. (In considering cases such as murderers, it is only necessary to see that, if another would interfere with ones basic right to life, self-defense, including killing, is just.) What makes life worth living - IE, what is it that, without it, one would be better off dead? I think that it is the ability to achieve values that makes life worthwhile. (Some values are better than others for one, but even if one has bad values, life is less enjoyable if they cannot be achieved.) How can values be achieved best? By the free choice of the individual among opportunities (or disadvantages - choosing the lesser of evils) - the individual will most naturally choose those things that fulfill highest values. Do humans have a right to possess non-human things? Yes - because those things help achieve values, and so enhance ones' life. (Living but non-rational things are an interesting case, but do not void my answer.) What does it mean to possess something? To have the right to make choices about that thing in order to achieve one's own values. This MUST include the right to not allow others to make choices with regard to that thing. Is it possible for more than one person to TOTALLY (ie not in shares) possess something? No - for different individuals have different values, which will lead to different choices for that thing. Since both choices cannot be taken, the individuals will not both have full choice with regard to the thing. What does Socialism mean? All "means of production" (in reality, anything can serve to fill a value, so really everything) are owned in equal shares by everyone, with no individual totally possessing any thing. Since socialism does not now exist, and never has, in the full sense, how can socialism be created? Since individuals now possess things, they must give up possession. Since this will mean that those possessing things will lose the benefits of possession, they will not wish to do so. Thus they must be FORCED to give up their possessions - that is, it is necessary to violate their rights of possession by threat or application of violence. How can socialism be sustained in the face of individuals' natural desire to regain that which was stolen from them? By continued force. Assuming that force can be used effectively long enough that the original possessors die and their children forget their lost inheritance, what remains wrong with socialism? Since choices will be made without regard to individual values, almost no-ones' values will be satisfied, beyond the basic animal needs - food, etc. Further, even the latter will not be the first choice, since those in positions to choose will most naturally choose in ways that tend to benefit themselves. Those having the power of choice for others will make choices that extend their (and their descendants') benefit. In effect, and in truth, those individuals will possess all things. Since all others must do as they are ordered (Force, again) in all things, they do not even possess their own lives. Hence, the origin of statements such as "Under socialism, my life is not my own" and "Better dead than Red". The latter is literally true, if "Red" is taken to mean any form of full socialism or communism. Life is not worth living if it is impossible to achieve any values. What is Capitalism? The recognition of the natural right of possession as a means to the end of achievement of values, by the individuals involved. (It is not necessary to have "the government" recognize this right in order for it to be a right. However, since the government has a monopoly on force, it is necessary for the government to recognize and support the right of possession. It does this by refraining from use of force except to counter force that is applied to deprive individuals of their rights (not just the right of possession.) It is only obligated to use its force in support of its own citizens, but it must not use its force against any individual's rights, citizen or not. Is, or has the US ever been, a capitalistic nation? No, not fully. It has been close, at times. However, we have had a mixed economy almost from the start. Freedom and life satisfaction has waned in proportion to the waxing of government control (IE choice and so possession) over individuals and their property. Doesnt Capitalism mean that some people have to give up their production to "Capitalists"? No - they can quit their jobs and be self employed - they can use their own capital (IE possessions) rather than using that of others. The owners of the means of production (the capitalists) have a right to whatever benefits they can get, without use of force, from their capital. What about the poor? They generally have the ability to work, somehow. If not, they will often have someone who is willing to support them. If all else fails, there are charities - nothing about capitalism says that it is wrong to give to others - merely to be forced to give. The above views are my own, probably flawed view, of the far less flawed vision of Ayn Rand on the subject. I apologize to her memory (or estate), or to anyone who knows those views better. Tom Craver houti!trc
gh (02/23/83)
The discussion of socialism is very much like the discussion of the existence of God a few weeks ago -- everybody has their own definition, different from everybody else's, and then attacks or defends their own private vision of socialism. For example, the socialism I defended earlier has little in common with Tom Craver's Ayn Rand-inspired nightmare. At the bottom of this discussion, I think, is the question of *selfishness*. Capitalist economies, especially America's, are predicated on the assumptions that (1) People are selfish. (2) You can structure an economy such that if everyone acts selfishly, the result is still the best for all. Point (1) is undoubtedly true in America, but only because the system has been in place long enough that people are brought up that way. I have grave doubts about point (2). On the other hand, Socialism (as I see it), assumes people aren't selfish, and if you allow for that fact you can make an even better economy. Most of the flames against Socialism, like Tom Craver's and Mark Terribile's, take people's selfishness as innate and unchangeable, from which it follows that Socialism has to be imposed by force and against the will of The People. Optimists like myself believe that we can slowly but surely change human nature if we try hard enough. Not much more than a hundred years ago, a lot of Americans believed it was okay to possess (to use Tom's favorite word) other people as slaves. Not even the Moral Majority believe that any more. Maybe by the year 2100, people will look back in amazement at the 20th century and its attitudes to wealth and possession, just as we look now at the slave-owners of the 19th century! Graeme Hirst, Brown University Computer Science !decvax!brunix!gh gh.brown@udel-relay
sher (02/24/83)
From: David.Sher I feel that there seems to be a semantic flaw in the argument as stated against socialism which you ascribe to Ayn Rand. This is the section I refer to: Do humans have a right to possess non-human things? Yes - because those things help achieve values, and so enhance ones' life. (Living but non-rational things are an interesting case, but do not void my answer.) What does it mean to possess something? To have the right to make choices about that thing in order to achieve one's own values. This MUST include the right to not allow others to make choices with regard to that thing. Is it possible for more than one person to TOTALLY (ie not in shares) possess something? No - for different individuals have different values, which will lead to different choices for that thing. Since both choices cannot be taken, the individuals will not both have full choice with regard to the thing. <End - Quote> Note that in the statement that people need to posses things you can substitute any word for posses (say rape) and make the same statement. Of course you can say that people do not have the right to do things that interfere with other peoples ability to acheive values but then you have to contend with the fact that any action can be found to interfare somehow with someone's ability to acheive their desires. Why must people have the right of exclusive access to anything? I can acheive most of my desires through sharing things (such as my apartment which I rent or access to this net). It would seem that married couples would not be able to acheive any of their desires according to the above argument since they do not have the right to exclude each other from access to their stuff (of course this is an oversimplification). Since this is one of the foundations to your argument I find the whole argument is open to question. -David sher (oftimes AI project)
turner (03/01/83)
#R:houti:-21400:ucbesvax:7100006:000:1971
ucbesvax!turner Feb 26 00:28:00 1983
As someone who knows "those views" all too well, I don't accept
your apology. As for the "far less flawed" -- let us say perfect,
shall we? -- vision of Ayn Rand, I beg to differ.
The main difference that I see is that Ayn Rand writes a hell of
a lot better than you. So much so, that I was completely taken in
for many years.
Tom, life is not as axiomatic as all this. Nor are you as
rigorous axiomatic as you think you are. When you asked what it
was "that without it, one would be better off dead?", I had to laugh.
I'm sorry, but I did. Ayn Rand had the guts to admit mortality into
the discussion -- doesn't one of her characters in "Atlas Shrugged"
define his value system in terms of his own death? (Ellis Wyatt,
I think.) But what is mortality to you? Just another value (albeit
negative) among many to "freely choose from"?
What it came down for Ayn Rand, I think, is that death scared her
into silence. She got older, lost her looks; too many cigarettes,
perhaps, not getting enough writing done. Not able to milk any more
life out of her "axiomatic" approach to it all. I was a fervid
Objectivist for more years than I care to count, but when she died
recently, I thought: there goes one big coward. She never could
admit to be wrong on any point, on the need to review and start
over on something. Some philosopher!
What it comes down to for me is that I want to live for awhile
(until I get sick of it, anyway) and see what happens. A Socialist
Tyranny could put a damper on my plans, but I don't think that a
revocation of property rights in itself would send me weeping off the
local skyscraper.
Being better off dead is an interesting concept, but I have
trouble carrying it very far. Perhaps you could make a contribution
to net.philosophy on this point? Or net.suicide?
Another Altruist-Collectivist Pig,
Michael Turner