Hi Don, Roger Platt 'n' All
On 23 Feb 99, at 1:10, drose wrote:
> I've read your post three times now. I can't see where we substantially
> disagree on the issue of government, provided we are using the same
> dictionary;-)
My two favourite dictionaries are "The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy" and "The
Concise Oxford Dictionary". I read them regularly :)
> The administration by the State of the means of production, putatively
> owned by People, is how I define socialism.
Sounds more like Marxism.
> I have yet to see a socialist economy that is not run by a nanny State,
> mainly because a true socialist economy doesn't work for real people and
> the State must coerce the People into behaving against their nature.
But one of the basic tenets of the MOQ is that it is moral to prevent biology from
damaging society. Isn't this coercion? Perhaps if we put "where biological behaviour is
likely to harm others" it would be more acceptable.
> Ironically, it is, as far as I know, universally true that the people
> who exercise the power of the State are only rarely constrained by the
> rules the rest of us poor schmucks have to live by.
Which does nothing to detract from Socialism as equality of treatment, rights and
opportunity for all. What it does bring into focus is that possibly democracy in general
and representational democracy in particular doesn't work.
> For example, I give you the "most ethical administration in history"
> here in America.
I'd have to disagree here. Any society that condones and practices capital punishment
fails to be ethical.
> > Whilst still remaining
> > individualistic you retain a
> > strong sense of collective/social responsibility.
>
> It is voluntary. Not coerced. I am not morally obligated to fund other
> people's poor planning and/or willful ignorance. Or laziness. I am more
> than happy to lend a hand to those who are trying or who absolutely
> can't help themselves.
Well poor planning may be a consequence of poor education, but leaving that aside I
agree with you. That you do what you do from freedom of choice and the exercise of free
will and not from moral obligation supports my argument above of collective/social
responsibility.
> > Empowering the state is an active process. The actual process is on a
> > more passive basis
> > as the state will take what it can when it can - public apathy,
> > stupidity, fear and greed aids this process.
>
> Sounds like Lowi's take on power. The biggest influence of my political
> education was Theodore Lowi's Poli-Sci textbook.
I don't know Lowi but my comments would be in line with what Chomsky writes.
> > If you want the continuance of the benefits of Libertarianism then it is
> > necessary that a limited form of
> > government is accepted in order that a base level of order exists.
> Highlight "limited." Capitalize it. I believe we can and must ensure
> equality of opportunity; guaranteeing equality of result is something
> I'm not willing to try. It can't work. It hasn't worked.
No-one can guarantee the results, but it is ethical and essential to provide the means.
There is no point in trying to homogenize a society as this results in destruction of DQ.
> I believe that Quality is much easier to perceive in a dynamic society.
Yup!
> I haven't had time to read Chomsky, but I will. It may be a while before
> I do, though.
I hope you find it worthwhile.
> I am currently reading Paul Davies and a couple of books on Eastern
> thought. 50 hour work weeks, three teenage kids and maintaining decent
> marital relations limit my leisure time activities.
Tell me about it!!!!! I've got one 9 year old boy and two one year old twin girls - eek!
> Be well!
And yourself.
On 22 Feb 99, at 23:43, RISKYBIZ9@aol.com wrote:
> Horse,
> I guess I need a new economics course. What you described as Socialism is so
> far removed from what I am familiar with when the term is used that it is
> unrecognizable.
Maybe due to the constant propagation of inaccuracies and lies by social institutions to
substitute Marxism, Leninism (I prefer Lennonism :) ) Stalinism, Communism etc. for what is
basically a good and moral system. If you go further back than Marx you will find that the
Libertarian Socialist model is identifiable as such in Adam Smith who also wrote "An
Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations". I believe this is supposed
to have had some influence on Capitalism :) but from what Smith says I doubt he would
recognize the term as it is used today. You could also try Wilhelm Von Humboldt who had
an enormous influence on probably the most famous Libertarian Socialist - John Stuart
Mill.
Mill was also a contemporary of Marx but their positions were entirely different. Marx
(along with Engels) was probably more influenced by Hegel which gave rise to "The
Communist Manifesto" which produced Bolshevism. You can also see the roots of
Fascism, Corporatism and Communitarianism in Hegel also.
Mill's form of Socialism is more as I have described it and I believe this is closer to the
more pure form - if such a thing exists - which is compatible with Libertarianism. Have you
read "On Liberty" and "On Representative Government"?
> I don't think I had any concerns with what you described.
> (Quite the compliment from someone who sees the value in libertarian
> capitalism)
Maybe there is some convergence. As I said in my last post in this thread, capitalism in
some forms (Smith?) is reasonable and acceptable. Corporations are the biggest threat - to
Socialism, Capitalism and to Libertarianism.
> But where is the State Ownership?
With the Marxists.
> Where is the income redistribution?
>From the poorest to the richest. Ordinary taxpayers - and generally the poorest - fund the
largest and most powerful corporations. In the U.S you could ask the Pentagon where all
the money goes.
> The Socialized medicine?
Keeping alive the labour pool who can't afford private medicine.
> The long lines for toilet paper and oranges?
So that's what you do in the john!!!! :)
> Seriously, I like your vision as
> stated, but I would suggest a new name ....or is that the whole point of
> calling it libertarian socialism?
You got it! Another name is classical liberalism - a product of the Enlightenment.
> Oh, I hope the exam went well!!!!!!
Cheers Rog. It was an essay on Berlin's Two Concepts of Liberty but who's counting! And
I'm waiting for the results.
Look forward to hearing from you
Horse
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:53 BST