From: Tom Zerucha <root@deimos.ceddec.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 12:49:39 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: wealth and property rights
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.94.961127071424.513A-100000@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961127142948.1948A-100000@deimos.ceddec.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


We DON'T live in a "capitalist" (free market, if you prefer) society.  If
we didn't have socalism transferring wealth, I would not need to pay
taxes, nor worry about having government take my wealth at gunpoint. 

Saying that Argentina is "capitalist" is the mistake, not that it is an
example where it does not work.  I would like an example where socialism
does work - by "work" I mean that resources are used efficiently.  Hong
Kong and Singapore exist.  The latter is far from free, politically, but
the economic freedom leads to efficient use of resources.  The closest
thing to a "working" socialist society I can think of is a monastary (many
do become wealthy), but I don't think the majority of the population can
emulate it.  The Amish may be socialist, but are they economically
efficient?  Any real capitalist society will be inferior to an imaginary
socialist utopia, just as cars are far more efficient where inertia and
aerodynamics don't exist.

Also, to define terms (for the purposes here, and to correct confusion
from earlier posts):

Socialism is where the government controls the means of production (this
includes regulation, so that I may "own" a factory, but the government
tells me what to produce, and/or how much and/or at what price). 

Capitalism (or pick another word) is where private individuals
(potentially acting collectively in a corporation) control the means of
production, and make the decisions of what and how much to produce, and
what price to sell it at.  Capital is a factor in production.

By Capitalism, I don't mean corpratism.  Corporations find it in their
interest to pass protectionist laws and corporate welfare benefits and
thus destroy free enterprise.  If you can keep small businesses to a
minimum, they will have less chance of becoming competitors.  But
corpratism requires government to set the product, quantity, or price,
which is under my definition of socialism.

I also don't mean anarchy, in the sense that I have to protect myself
individually from violence, theft, and fraud.  That is one of the few
proper functions of government.  Trade doesn't flourish when each
monitary transaction is trumped by weapons.

My point is that the Capitalist (free enterprise) society will be
wealthier and happier than a socialist society, not that it will be
perfect.

Corporations will benefit from many things, even in a free enterprise
society - and I hope they do, since (with the current bias against
independent contractors - another socialist idea) I stand a better chance
of being employed and making money the more healthy corporations compete
for my labor.

tz@execpc.com
finger tz@execpc.com for PGP key