From: Terry Donaghe (tdonaghe@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Dec 10 1998 - 06:26:25 MST
I'm working on a more comprehensive rebuttal, but first, I want to say
that the entire premise of socialism is based on violence directed at
the individual. When a government steals money earned by a worker, it
is practicing a form of violence.
Remember, if a worker resists the government's demand for his money,
he will be met with violence.
Do you refute this? If so, please explain how taxation is nonviolent.
If you don't refute this, please explain how government mandated
violence against individuals fits in with Extropian principles.
---Samael <Samael@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
> I'm forwarding this to a fiew friends as well for opinions.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terry Donaghe <tdonaghe@yahoo.com>
> >Amen! I would love to see a rational defense of socialism by some of
> >our collectivist associates. I posit that it can't be done
> >(rationally).
> >
> >Any takers?
>
>
> Any defense of socialism I would mount would have to take into
account three
> basic assumptions:
>
> 1) Human nature is such that all people try to benifit themselves
(and to a
> lesser extent their friends/relatives) as much as possible.
> 2) 'Property' does not actually exist and is merely a way of saying
'I deny
> you access to this'.
> 3) Sufficient social/monetary inequality leads to social disruption.
>
>
> Communists tend to forget point (1) and focus on point (2).
> Capitalists tend to forget point (2) and focus on point (1)
> (3) tends to cause problems in capitalist societies on an internal
basis (in
> the UK, under more capitalist policies the percentage difference
between the
> rich and the poor went up by about 7% over the 10 years the
conservative
> party was in power. This caused large amounts of social unrest,
> demonstrations and the biggest landslide in living history for their
> opposition party).
> (3) tends to cause problems for communist societies on an external
basis
> (When the Soviet Republics realised how much better of Western
Europe was
> they revolted.)
>
> A fourth point is sometimes useful to remember.
> (4) Homo Sapiens is a pack animal that naturally speaking has a
heirarchy.
> People are most comfortable with a chain of command. They like to
feel that
> the chain of command listens to them and considers their feelings
and that
> it is looking out for them. It is a mistake to indulge this too
much, but
> it is worth bearing in mind.
>
>
> Having shown that both Communist and Capitalist societies tend to
forget
> about one of (1) or (2) thus causing (3), I would say that it makes
sense to
> mix them sluightly, taking into account of both (1) and (2) which
gives...
> socialism.
>
> My preferred method of socialism would be to provide free Gealth
Care (of a
> standard necessary to get people back to work) and enough of a
handout to
> allow people to survive. This handout should _not_ be means tested
(if it
> drops as they start earning here is less incentive to start
earning). Free
> Education will also be provided (education leads to raised output
and higher
> GNP's as well as lowering reproduction), but not in the current form
- as
> has been pointed out most current education sucks.
>
> I look forward to hearing objections.
>
> Samael
>
>
==
----------------------
Terry Donaghe: terry@donaghe.com
Individual, Anarcho-Capitalist, Environmentalist, Transhumanist, Mensan
The Millennium Bookshelf: <http://www.donaghe.com/mbookshelf.htm>
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:56 MST