🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 26 Jun 1998 20:01:55, hyde@tamu.edu (William Hyde) wrote:

> In article <JdfXXMn02q9O-pn2-uFGpjQ3YlJGx@dial-46-92.ots.utexas.edu>,
> 	aaron.evans@mail.utexas.edu (Aaron Evans) writes:

> > Free trade (voluntary exchange of goods and labor between individuals)
> > is a fundamental principle of capitalism.  Individual freedom 
> > (ownership of oneself and one's labor)
 
> 	Interesting that you think that this is the whole of
> 	the definition of individual freedom.

My definition of individual freedom differs from the one that includes
the right to have someone pay for your abortion or the right to demand
a certain dentist that doesn't want you.  But what really falls 
outside my definition?

Capitalism, btw, is the only political system commensurate with 
individual freedom.  Bc like I said in capitalism relationships are on
a voluntary basis.  So when I said capitalism demands individual 
freedom, I should have said individual freedom demands capitalism.
 
> 	Nor is free trade a fundamental principal of
> 	capitalism.  When John D Rockefeller was preventing
> 	the railroads from carrying his competitor's goods
> 	he was being a capitalist, but clearly opposing free
> 	trade.  Monopolistic practices are a natural outcome
> 	of capitalism, but reduce freedom for all but the
> 	monopolist.

I said free trade requires those transactions to be voluntary.  
Rockefeller isn't obligated to provide transporation.  On the monopoly
question, the government created the railroad monopolies by granting 
subsidies that drove others out of business.  I don't see what you're 
bitching about.

> > Saying that socialism doesn't demand individual servitude is quite 
> > remarkable.  How can I be considered free if the fruits of my labor 
> > are designated for the use of "society"?  If socialism doesn't demand 
> > individual servitude, why isn't anyone offering a voluntary form of 
> > socialism? 
> 
> 	Voluntary socialism is offered in these little things
> 	called elections, by parties called socialist.  Sometimes
> 	they are even defeated when in power.

By voluntary, I meant on an individual basis.  It isn't voluntary to 
be voted into slavery.

>>  Because if it were voluntary, only people who consume more
> > than they produce would join (and that wouldn't work, now would it?)
 
> 	Your deduction is false, as rich people have joined and
> 	contributed to Socialist parties in the past.  You seem to
> 	be implicitly assuming that greed is the only motivation
> 	humans have.  Simply by considering your own life you
> 	will (I hope) see that this is wrong.

I guess I was assuming that we are talking about people with 
self-respect.  The typical person doesn't have enough self-restraint 
to safely use a credit card.  Why would I choose to let them share 
with me?
 
> > As for this country, the USA is neither socialist nor capitalist.  
> > This country is fascist, plain and simple.  Fascism is a totalitarian 
> > state in which property is entrusted to individual ownership, but 
> > disposed of by the government (in otherwords, a complete mockery of 
> > property rights).  For example, in America we pretend to be free, but 
> > the government can conscipt us against our wills.
 
> 	So you have a brand-new definiton of facism to go with
> 	your new definition of capitalism.  I doubt that Mussolini
> 	or Franco would buy your definition, though.

Nazi Germany and Italy maintained nominal property rights, but all was
at the disposal of the totalitarian government.  What's wrong with 
that, and why isn't the USA looking that way?  I mean, our elections 
don't do anything, so why isn't it totalitarian?

Aaron