Ian Goddard wrote:
>
> At 09:56 AM 10/29/98 +1300, J. Maxwell Legg 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.
>
> IAN: The definition of socialism cited observes
> by default that consumers have been deprived of
> political power -- which is held by producers --
> and that consumers have been taken out of the con-
> trol of the distribution of goods; which is exactly
> the case in the socialist, but not libertarian, state.
>
> We can also observe that a definition of libertarianism
> need only note that * individuals * have political power,
> not that one social subset, such as producers, had power.
> What is more, the idea that producers have power in the
> socialist state is false, the central planners have it.
>
Until this demarchy is a reality I feel it is a pity to contribute a wasteful writing of replies to email posts that disappear into a nothingness of biased meanings.