From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Oct 25 2002 - 10:53:59 MDT
Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 10/24/2002 7:59:14 PM Central Standard Time,
>charleshixsn@earthlink.net writes: Consider a typical pre-industrial english
>village. For the moment we'll ignore that castle on the hill. Neighbors
>share with neighbors. People try to share fairly. But when it comes time to
>sell a cow, just watch the negotiations! How am I to decide which parts of
>this are "socialist"? Clearly they aren't all socialist. How am I to decide
>which parts are capitalist? Clearly they aren't all all capitalist. And I
>don't have decent definitions that will allow me to classify things.
>
>Charles,
> I think we are at about the right level. Ayn Rand in some of her
>non-fiction writing covered this territory pretty well. However I will
>recommend her for your consideration never expecting you to totally adopt her
>viewpoint -- I don't know what viewpoint you will adopt after consideration.
>
OK. I'll check it out. Would you recommend anything in particular?
(You're right. I can tell from her fiction that I wouldn't adopt her
beliefs, as she has people acting in various ways that are statictically
quite uncommon. But she might well still have good definitions.)
> Robert A. Heinlein expressed a riddle once in a book of his. If a
>small village had a Spanish barber and that barber shaved every man in the
>village that did not shave himself then who shaved the Spanish barber.
>
Yeah. Bertrand Russell's paradox. Heinlein's answer was she wasn't a
man. My answer was he lived outside of town. Same kind of answer. But
the important thing to notice was that this was a fiction being accepted
as-if it were a fact. When you run into this kind of paradox, that's
the first thing to look for. There are other logically possible
answers, but most commonly there is a fiction involved in the statement
of the case.
> The answer of course to make a distinction between those things we do
>in our private and public capacities.
>
No. That is an invalid answer. A public executioner kills people for a
living. If killing people is bad, per se, then he is a bad person,
regardless of whether he is doing it for the state or not. Et
multitudinous cetera.
There are several ways out of this. One is to discard the blanket rule
that killing people is bad. Then we need to very carefully craft a rule
that says just exactly what we mean. Is it permissible to use deadly
force to defend yourself? What about to defend someone else? What
evidence is required to show that this was reasonable, etc.
Another way out is just to declare that killing people is bad. And then
to decide that there won't be any publically sponsored killers. Then
you have the problem of the army, of defending yourself against
invaders, and things get complicated again.
Or you could decide that killing people is ok. This leads to
complications which are worked out physically rather than
legalistically. Lots of people get severely hurt this way.
But saying that it's ok as long as you do it as a job is just
unacceptable (to me).
> Similarly, we have to remember that capitalism and socialism are
>political theorys and exist within a political system. I am not sure it
>makes any sense at all to try to introduce those terms into totally private
>areas of conduct.
>
If they only have theoretical meanings, and can't be recognized as a
physical appearance, then they are merely spooks. Theological whimsies
left over from the middle ages. I suspect that they actually have more
meaning that that, though I will admit that formulating it is a bit of
work. And I can't do it, as I don't subscribe to either approach.
> Within families and with workmates or close neighbors I see people do
>things all the time that seem almost unclassifiable and most of the time it
>doesn't bother me at all. What do you call it when your sister does
>something for you and later unbidden you see something she needs so you step
>up to the plate and do for her? What do you call it if you see your sister
>has gotten the short end of the stick in life and you step up to help her get
>ahead. In one sense you were balancing the scales between you, in another
>sense you were selfishly helping yourself by strengthening the family and in
>the end strengthening your own position.
> But, in the end you are going to have to come up with new terms
>because neither capitalism nor socialism seem to even fit that area of life
>much less do they explain that conduct.
> It is certain that I don't have any strict explanation or those
>circumstances. I only know that those things go on between members of
>families, neighborhoods and workplaces. It seems to depend upon the
>intelligence, love and concern existing between the people involved.
>Ron h.
>
What you say may be true. Without a good definition I can't tell. I do
know that many people who have attempted to tell me what socialism or
capitalism meant have pointed at examples drawn from personal life. The
kid's lemonaide stand (subsidized by the parents), is held as an example
of capitalism, though it seems to me that it could equally be used as an
example of socialism. (And I haven't seen one in the last four decades.
Are business licenses capitalist or socialist? And when did they start
being enforced against kids? Or is there some other reason? [Chain
stores, perhaps?])
-- -- Charles Hixson Gnu software that is free, The best is yet to be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:46 MST