From: Michael Lorrey (retroman@together.net)
Date: Thu Oct 29 1998 - 12:11:57 MST
J. Maxwell Legg wrote:
> Ian Goddard wrote:
>
> > IAN: In fact, it stands to reason that "socialist
> > transhumanism" would be "compulsory transhumanism,"
> > because a socialist plan is government implemented
> > and thus compulsory, and therefore the libertarian
> > ethic is the definitionally anti-Nazi >H policy;
> > and as such, the libertarian ethic is the only
> > policy compatible with ethical transhumanism.
> >
>
> excerpt from "Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron?"
>
> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI1.html
>
> So what does socialism mean? And is it compatible with
> libertarian ideals? Webster's New International Dictionary
> defines a libertarian as "One who holds to the doctrine
> of free will; also, one who upholds the principles of
> liberty, esp. individual liberty of thought and action."
>
> According to the American Heritage Dictionary "socialism"
> is "a social system in which the producers possess both
> political power and the means of producing and distributing
> goods." This definition fits neatly with the implications
> of the word "libertarian" indicated above. In fact, it
> shows that socialism is necessarily libertarian, not statist.
No No No. You missed the most important difference. In the first
definition, it applied to the individual, while the second refered to
the 'producers' as a common group. This is the essential incompatibility
of libertarianism and socialism. Libertarianism declares that the prime
political unit is the individual, while socialism declares that the
primary political unity is the community or society, thus letting in the
buggaboo of coersion of the individual by the tyranny of the masses.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:42 MST