brad@looking.UUCP (03/01/87)
In article <630@sask.UUCP> reid@sask.UUCP (I am NOT your Sweet Baboo) writes: > >Worker control of the means of production is one of the central ideas in >Marxism. Marxist-Leninism extends this control to the state, since the >workers are supposed to be in control of the state. > >Socialism in general (try to find a good hard definition of socialism some >time...) does not concern itself with the means of production; more >important is the idea that the state is responsible for the well-being of >its inhabitants. That may be achieved by state control of production, but >is more often done through taxation of a private economy and a strong social >welfare system. > >> A socialist believes that it is right to steal no matter how many people >> don't want it to happen. Well, I will admit that people do seem to think up all sorts of meanings for that word, "socialism" -- but they all apply to my statement above. One common one found in dictionaries is: "A philosophy of state control or ownership of the means of production" another is "A political principle advocating cooperative action and community of property" others can be found, including those similar to yours, although that one rarely comes first. What I think has happened is that since 'socialist' is a perjoritave term in the USA, people have tried to move the definition of the word (or the word they use for themselves) to avoid the stigma. The dictionary definitions are older, and closer to the original meaning. One common thread exists in all the definitions of socialism I have seen. Some form of denial of private property. Either a belief that the state should control the means of production or through "taxation of a private economy." And thus, by anybody's defintion, my remark with respect to socialists and their belief in the rightness of theft still stands. Or do you dispute my definition of theft -- "the taking of a person's property against his or her will?" -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
imprint@watmath.UUCP (03/01/87)
If "theft" is, as Brad Templeton argues, "taking a person's property against his will", then every kind of community is guilty, since the objectives of the whole, in any definition of community, sometimes have priority over those of the individual. Public works often involves expropriation, the taking of property against the will of somebody. If property is extended to include the possession of life and freedom of action, all military ideas, including all military action involve "theft", since military ideas involve forcing people against their will, usually forcing them to die, or give up property, or give up freedom. I sympathize with Brad's idealization of individual human self-determination. Ideally, no one should ever be forced to do anything against his/her will. But realistically, in a society of persons where the will of some will always be in opposition to the will of others, some system of mediation (which can result in the violation of one person's will) has to exist. This is not necessarily socialism or communism. Feudalism and capitalism have lots of means whereby a community can force some of its members to do things against their will, or to surrender property against their will. Communities cease to exist in the absence of some means whereby the community can assert a pre-eminence over the individual. Social responsibility has to do with recognizing when one's own will is contrary to that of the community. Acceptance in a community seems to have to do with the willingness to surrender one's own will on the community's behalf from time to time. We live in communities. We have to live in communties, and most of us want to live in communities. This implies a sacrifice of narrow self-interest for the interest of the whole from time to time. While socialism may limit the ways in which individuals can abuse their societies, such sacrifices are a part of all human communities. Can anyone think of a community where participation does not require that one accept that the community will "steal" from you from time to time? (i.e. that you accept that the community has some claim on your time, money, property, life, behaviour, etc.???) The problem is not socialism vs. capitalism (or any other system) the problem is, how do we get along with each other in such a way that the benefits of cooperation are optimized? Stated differently, the problem is how do we get along with each other so that interference with the individual is minimized? Here we see the difference between socialism and capitalism, perhaps. The problem is the same, the statements are very different and lead to very different answers. Is the objective to minimize interference, or maximize benefit? Doug Thompson (these opinions are mine, not my employer's) -------------------------------Imprint-------------------------------- | CSNet: imprint@math.waterloo.edu Campus Centre Rm. 140 | | uucp: {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,utzoo} University of Waterloo | | !watmath!imprint Waterloo, Ontario | | CDNnet: imprint@math.waterloo.cdn N2L 3G1 | | arpa: imprint%math.waterloo.edu@ (519) 885-1211 x 2332 | | csnet-relay.arpa (519) 888-4048 | ------------------------University of Waterloo------------------------ Imprint is the student newspaper of the University of Waterloo.
cdshaw@alberta.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (03/04/87)
In article <747@looking.UUCP> @looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >And thus, by anybody's definition, my remark with respect to socialists and >their belief in the rightness of theft still stands. > >Or do you dispute my definition of theft -- "the taking of a person's >property against his or her will?" >-- >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 More lack of rigor. The concept of "property" in its capitalist sense does not exist in the (hard core) socialist context. It's like talking about polymorphism in the Pascal context. The term "polymorphism" simply doesn't exist when you're talking Pascal. So saying perjoratively that "Pascal doesn't believe in polymorphism" is silly, since such a statement implies that Pascal should, and is evil because it doesn't. Note that pushing this analogy too far is hazardous. Actually, a religious example in the vein of polytheism/monotheism works better since it's nontechnical. Anyway, that's not the only thing that's bogus about Brad's statements above. Basically, Brad is a utopian Libertarian. This means that he wants all his loot to himself, and will only give it to someone else if they have made a deal that requires his payment, or if he's feeling charitable. This ignores co-operative ventures on the large scale where someone has to lose. A social "hyperspace button", if you will. Which means that if 99% of the country decides that your farm has to be given up for some vital project, in Brad's dystopia, you can hit your hyperspace button, opt out of the social deal, and keep your farm. Until the Commies (:-) invade and take it over because the project was vital to the defence of the country from the Commies. Handwaving arguments to the effect of "but I'll contribute to defense" are of no effect. Why should I contribute if you will? (Otherwise, it's taxes, which are out of the question). If you're buying an army, why not buy a big one? Then you could take over the country, and screw all this libertarian bullshit, YOU OWN THE PLACE! To counteract this, everybody has his own army. How is this different from the middle ages? How is this different from free-ranging pirates in the 1600's? You think TODAY's arms spending is bad? I claim that piracy in 1670 was exactly the same as the Libertarian society Brad wants. Any pirate could own a ship, the captain was elected, you could move on if you didn't like the ship you were on..... Fine, but unproductive as hell. An economy based entirely on robbery. "Legal" piracy stopped in the early 1700's because the merchants supporting the robbing of other countries' ships realized that they could make more money at legitimate business. End of libertine hordes. More rigor, Brad. Less bogosity. -- Chris Shaw cdshaw@alberta University of Alberta CatchPhrase: Bogus as HELL !
brad@looking.UUCP (03/04/87)
In article <246@pembina.alberta.UUCP> cdshaw@pembina.UUCP (Chris Shaw) writes: >The concept of "property" in its capitalist sense does not >exist in the (hard core) socialist context. It's like talking about polymorphism >in the Pascal context. > Doesn't it? "property", or more generally "rights to control or enjoy something" is a concept used in all forms of socialism except for total communism. In today's high-taxation system, even the nomenclature shows that a concept of property exists. You get your salary (the one the employer) pays, and then a tax is calculated on that. It is said that your salary is $30,000 and you pay a tax of $10,000 on that. It is *not* said that your salary is $20,000. Of course, what happens is often different. Most, but not all tax is collected at source, which means you don't see the money. But this is still (even in the most socialist of western states) a practice done to help the tax collection process, not an official statement that the money isn't yours. At any rate, in a system that involves state ownership or control of the means of production, property still exists. The government merely has the right to redefine ownership, transferring it from you to them at their pleasure. >Anyway, that's not the only thing that's bogus about Brad's statements above. >Basically, Brad is a utopian Libertarian. Not at all. Perhaps this is your confusion. Not surprising, because we are all guilty here of shifting in our discussion between ideology and implementation without warning. Just because I enjoy discussion of ideology doesn't mean it is how I live my life. The libertarian ideology (and don't capitalize it -- to me, the difference is as much as the difference between conservative and Conservative) as most people understand it is almost as utopian as socialist ideology. My own concept, which I call libertarian because that's the nearest thing to it, is too involved, and not well enough written down yet to be discussed on the net. >This ignores co-operative >ventures on the large scale where someone has to lose. A social "hyperspace >button", if you will. Which means that if 99% of the country decides that your >farm has to be given up for some vital project, in Brad's dystopia, you >can hit your hyperspace button, opt out of the social deal, and keep your >farm. True in just about nobody's system, actually. You make the mistake that libertarian philosophy is "hermitism instead of cooperation." It is, in fact, "cooperation instead of coercion." If you won't sell your farm so they can build a bypass around it, there are lots of non-violent ways to get you to agree. These include things ranging from paying you a large price to the total exclusion of you from commercial society. > >Handwaving arguments to the effect of "but I'll contribute to defense" are of >no effect. Why should I contribute if you will? (Otherwise, it's taxes, which >are out of the question). If you're buying an army, why not buy a big one? >Then you could take over the country, and screw all this libertarian bullshit, >YOU OWN THE PLACE! To counteract this, everybody has his own army. How is >this different from the middle ages? How is this different from free-ranging >pirates in the 1600's? You think TODAY's arms spending is bad? You confuse anarchism with libertariansm. Libertarian philosophy identifies the primary purpose of a country as the common defence. You do not get a private army -- it's part of the mutual agreement of those who formed the country. The same applies to the laws protecting yourself and property from violence. > > More rigor, Chris. Less bogosity. If you think that pirate culture of the 17th century has much to do with either libertarian ideology or implementation, you are wasting your breath. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
rob@arcsun.UUCP (03/05/87)
In article <751@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > ... My own concept, which I call > libertarian because that's the nearest thing to it, is too involved, and > not well enough written down yet to be discussed on the net. Is this a synonym for "confused"? :-) > ... You make the mistake that libertarian > philosophy is "hermitism instead of cooperation." It is, in fact, > "cooperation instead of coercion." If you won't sell your farm so they can ^^^^^^^^ > build a bypass around it, there are lots of non-violent ways to get you to > agree. These include things ranging from paying you a large price to the > total exclusion of you from commercial society. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That sounds suspiciously like coercion to me. Oh well, what do I know? Rob Aitken {...alberta,...ubc-vision}!calgary!arcsun!rob "[If we had done something about research] 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in this jackpot today." - Brian Mulroney, March 4, 1987
brad@looking.UUCP (03/06/87)
In article <184@arcsun.UUCP> rob@arcsun.UUCP (Rob Aitken) writes: >> build a bypass around it, there are lots of non-violent ways to get you to >> agree. These include things ranging from paying you a large price to the >> total exclusion of you from commercial society. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >That sounds suspiciously like coercion to me. It does sound like it, but it isn't quite. It's an extreme, and the closest thing to coercion that a free society has. Most libertarians don't like the use of this technique, but it is still a couple of orders of magnitude different from putting people in jail if they don't cooperate. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473