From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue Oct 22 2002 - 09:20:43 MDT
Mike Lorrey wrote:
>--- Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>--- Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
> ...
>
>I'll note that those who believe in socialist anarchism also have a
>vastly higher than normal tendency to believe in Gaia concepts, that
>there has to be some meta-intelligence that encompasses the Earth's
>biosphere and directing its development. This characteristic is
>
We shouldn't, however, forget that the kin-selection principles do work.
That eusocial animals have evolved. Etc. The original Gaia
hypothersis, postulating a feedback relationship between plant coverage
and temperature was a lot more reasonable than some of the things that
people derived from a shallow reading of it.
>... There is no reason why enclaves of communalism cannot
>exist within a capitalist plenum, generally to provide shelter for
>those insecure types who cannot live as truly free individuals. The
>
You are drawing a false, or perhaps unclear, connection. A free society
can allow enclaves to exist. A capitalist society, as normally
understood, is no more a free society than is a socialist society. A
pure capitalist society vests all rights in the holders of capital, as a
pure socialist society vests all rights in the society itself. If you
are one of the elite, than a capitalist society may seem free... until
those kept on the bottom object.
This is why I tend to favor minarchy rather than anarchy.
Concentrations of power are dangerous, and antithetical to freedom.
I'm more interested in maintaining (encouraging) freedom than I am in
forwarding any particular economic theory, whether it is "natural" or not.
>fact that socialist societies cannot tolerate capitalist enclaves
>within them demonstrates which should be the plenipotentiary system.
>
I believe that in the past there have been as many socialist states that
encouraged enclaves of capitalism as there have been capitalist states
that have encouraged enclaves of socialism. Specific numbers are hard
to come by here, as both terms have quite fuzzy definitions. However,
almost all tribes are essentially socialist internally, but operate as
capitalist with the exterior world (as best they understand their
options). And indications are that inter-continental trade routes
existed as far back as the neo-lithic, perhaps even into the
paleo-lithic. (Trading, e.g., amber, gold, flint, and likely spices,
though I don't believe that any have been found [but *would* they be
found?].) So it's probably safe to assume that socialist and capitalist
precursors existed within human society from almost the first. They
just weren't separated out as ideologies. It's not clear to me that
separating them out has yielded any substantial advantages to make up
for it's immense disadvantages, but we seem to have done it anyway.
>That some species in the capitalist plenum of nature find niches where
>communalism can function is a demonstration of this.
>
>Mike Lorrey
>
>
And I still don't have a clear idea of what you mean by capitalist or
socialist. At some points you appear to be equating capitalism with
libertarianism. Certainly libertarianism must permit capitalism to
exist, but it would seem equally necessary for it to permit socialism to
exist. And if it is to continue to maintain liberties, it's hard to see
how it could allow either to become dominant. Now Hobbs did have a
concept of "Anarchism is the war of all against all" that might be what
you are espousing, but in that case I find it difficult to understand
how you could speak favorably of it.
Reflecting back to my signature. The original free software license was
the BSD license. But that allowed latecomers to grab source code that
someone had worked on, hide it, make a few changes and then publish it
as their own. Further the original creator might find that he needed to
repurchase the code that he had created. Understandably, there ceased
to be many people willing to release their source code under the BSD
license.
Shortly after the BSD license was created, the GPL was created. This
put some limits on things. This said (paraphrasing) "You can use my
source code, but if you do, and you redistribute the program (as, e.g.,
an executable), then you must allow the purchaser the get the source
code for free. Further, you can't make him do any more than I'm making
you do." There's a bit more , but that's the heart of it. People have
been willing to work and contribute under this license. They don't tend
to feel like their work is being stolen. So they are willing to share.
Some people insist on their software being commercial. Some people work
with the GPL. Some people still work with the BSD license. And there
are several minor modified versions to handle special situations. This
is freedom. You get to choose what you want. And you don't get
developing monopolies (except within the commercial area). And of all
these, the only segment that is a danger to the liberties of others is
the commercial group. So I'm not exactly enamored of capitalism as a
protector of liberties. It's capitalists that are corrupting the
legislators. I don't really care how they got their immense power, I
care how they are using it. And they are clear proof that large
concentrations of power are dangerous to liberties, even of those who
don't want to go near them.
Is this what you mean by capitalism?
-- -- 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 - 09:17:42 MST