PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET (Jamie) (02/13/90)
From Ralph Harris: > Actually the government seems to exploit the land more sometimes, > since it can work around its own laws. But what I said was that private land is exploited more, not that it is in every case exploited more than every piece of Fed. land. And as long as the Fed. holds the land, we can control what happens to it. Once it's sold off to developers, it's gone. I must say, even on a "natural rights" view of property, I don't see what possible basis there is for demanding the auctioning off of public land. Don't I have as much natural right to the Grand Canyon as any other person? If I do, I will certainly veto any attempt to develop it for private use. On the democratic theory of property, I admit that if you could make a good case that selling off Yosemite park would preserve it better than keeping it Federally owned, there would be as perfect a justification as there could be for selling it off. But I doubt you could make this convincing case. Regarding an ESOP: > The common term for it is Syndicalism. As von Mises defines it in > "Socialism"--"Every measure which takes the ownership of the means of > production from the entrepreneurs, capitalists, and landlords without > transferring it to the WHOLE of the citizens of the economic area, > is to be regarded as Syndicalism." As though whatever von Mises says is the definition of a term must BE the definition, by fiat. It is pointless to quibble about terminology, though. The point was that democratic control of the steal factory worked in practice. Call it whatever you want. > Unfortunately Syndicalism isn't the best way to good about capitalism > Most Syndicalist schemes are static. It may not be the best way to go about capitalism, but it's the best way to go about democracy. Could we see some evidence for the claim that syndicalist schemes are "static"? [about 137 questions deleted] The answers to the questions depend, obvously, on which variety of scheme you are talking about. It is an interesting question what is the best way of arranging enfranchisement of the workplace, and a question that needs to be investigated. If that was your point, I agree. > von Mises: > "As an aim Syndicalism is so absurd, that speaking generally, it > has not found any advocates who dared to write openly and clearly > in its favor. ... > Syndicalism has never been anything else than the ideal of plundering > hordes." A magnificent argument. What has been demonstrated, I take it, is that von Mises is very fond of name calling. This I already knew. It suggests also that he knew very little about intellectual history-- many people have advocated and <gasp!> actually practiced! various varieties of syndicalism. > ps: for an explanation of why socialism doesn't work, see the > rest of his boo I am told that it is von Mises' worst book. That's saying some. But I admit I have come upon Mises only recently--he may have other books that are much worse. > -Ralph Harris > "I know who John Galt is...I just want to find him!" The rest of us will have to make do with reality. Jamie
JWALES3@UA1VM.BITNET (Jimbo Wales) (02/13/90)
A typical Jimbo letter here, but at the bottom please find some humor. On Mon, 12 Feb 90 18:15:09 EST Jamie said: >But what I said was that private land is exploited more, not that it >is in every case exploited more than every piece of Fed. land. And as >long as the Fed. holds the land, we can control what happens to it. I dispute the second claim, i.e. that 'we' (whoever that is!) can control better the land belonging to the Federal Gov't than that belonging to private citizens. > >Regarding an ESOP: >> The common term for it is Syndicalism. As von Mises defines it in >> "Socialism"--"Every measure which takes the ownership of the means of >> production from the entrepreneurs, capitalists, and landlords without >> transferring it to the WHOLE of the citizens of the economic area, >> is to be regarded as Syndicalism." Actually, I think that Ralph is misreading either the original posting about the steel plant, or Mises definition of syndicalism. Syndicalism is a political system. Notice the definition quoted. Ownership of the means of production is still very much in the hands of the 'entrepreneurs and capitalists' in that steel plant. The owners just happen to work there, is all. >As though whatever von Mises says is the definition of a term must BE >the definition, by fiat. Whoa, Jamie... not fair at all. If we are to discuss these issues, we need terms with which to make hair-splitting distinctions. Introducing a term used by Mises is not illegitimate at all. Do you have a quibble with Mises definition? Can you suggest a more useful word, or are you just looking for a good angle to slam from? >> Syndicalism has never been anything else than the ideal of plundering >> hordes." > >A magnificent argument. What has been demonstrated, I take it, is that >von Mises is very fond of name calling. This I already knew. It >suggests also that he knew very little about intellectual history-- >many people have advocated and <gasp!> actually practiced! various >varieties of syndicalism. Yikes! No fair again! von Mises is widely recognized to have had a staggering command of intellectual history. Remember that von Mises used words in a very precise manner. Syndicalism could never be practiced in full. One might identify Syndicalist elements in various social systems... but these would not be Syndicalism. >I am told that it is von Mises' worst book. That's saying some. >But I admit I have come upon Mises only recently--he may have other >books that are much worse. He does: I find _The Anti-Capitalist Mentality_ to be much worse from a strictly academic perspective. In that book, von Mises advances a theory that 1> since capitalism is Obviously Superior to other systems 2> yet many otherwise clever intellectuals advance the dumbest arguments against it 3> they must have some psychological defense mechanisms to prevent them from thinking clearly. I happen to somewhat agree with that thesis... but only on a very mild level. People do not want to understand capitalism and are often unwilling to think in a rational manner about it. >> -Ralph Harris >> "I know who John Galt is...I just want to find him!" _Atlas Shrugged_ cast of characters on this list! John Galt - Dan Evens (by virtue of being a physicist) Hank Rearden - John Kelsey (as Rearden combines business and engineering, John K. combines computer science and economics) Danneskjold - Dave McKee (by virtue of his dramatic passion) Midas Mulligan - Jimbo Wales (by virtue of his study of finance) d'Anconia - Ralph Harris (by virtue of the fact that I wanted someone to play the part of the third student, and he is here) Dr. Pritchett - Jamie D. (of course) Dr. Stadler - John Kjoll (by virtue of his scientific bent) None of the rest of you 'fit' a character in the book as well as these. And so on. I AM JUST JOKING! PLEASE DO NOT TAKE OFFENSE!!! --Jimbo
mckee@TISSS.RADC.AF.MIL (DAVE MCKEE) (02/14/90)
Hey Ralph, As you can see Jamie continues to support various forms of socialsim despite the fact that it is collapsing allaround him, That it stangles freedom, and that despite his attempts at trying to show that employee owned factories (ie: the employees own the CAPITAL...making them capitalists...) are some form of socialistic "means of production owned by the people" (which they are not)... Well, We just gotta keep "chippin away...." David T. McKee "John Galt could be you, John Galt could be me... John Galt is the man who says 'Lunch aint for Free!'" John Jacob Jinglehimer Shmidt...
FSJFZ@ALASKA.BITNET (jason) (02/14/90)
> >Hey Ralph, As you can see Jamie continues to support various forms of socialsi m >despite the fact that it is collapsing allaround him, That it stangles freedom, > i don't think that `socialism' is collapsing everywhere. most of the socialist governments around the world still exist. The marxist-Lenininst types on the other hand... jason