From: Jim Wise <jim@santafe.arch.columbia.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 04:40:47 -0800 (PST)
To: tz@execpc.com
Subject: Re: wealth and property rights
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961126110818.4290A-100000@deimos.ceddec.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.94.961127071424.513A-100000@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Tom Zerucha wrote:

> 2. In a socialist society wealth is confiscated at gunpoint.  In a
> capitalist society, I have to provide something that you want more than
> your wealth in order to obtain it.  Bill Gates has lots of money because

You are confusing the difference between capitalism and socialism with that
between authoritarianism and anarchism.  If you think that money isn't taken
at gunpoint in this society, try not paying taxes for a while...  Or more
subtly and more brutally, try not paying for food and shelter for a while...

Conversely to suggest that all socialist economies rely on state enforcement
contradicts generations of communal life among groups such as the Amish...

A more accurate division, if you are looking for sweeping generalizations,
is to say that all statist systems (and it is immaterial to me whether the
state calls itself a `government', a `collective', or a `corporation')
sustain themselves by theft, while in a free society, a more open system
is possible.

Were a truly free society to exist, you or I could choose our own economic
system, rather than being coerced into whatever system is profitable for
those currently in power.  I tend to believe that a communal existance
under such circumstances would be ideal.  I suspect you would seek for
capitalism.  So be it.  Of course, whether a system such as ours could
survive without the national guard, an army, and a police state to keep the
lower classes in line is another question...

> 4. When you say wealth isn't being transferred, it is also generally
> untrue.  While someone may be controlling it, their control is usually not

Each year a smaller percentage of the population controls a larger percentage
of the wealth, while the income and holdings of the average citizen drops.
Wealth certainly is being transferred...  In the wrong direction.

> 5. Government is the least efficient means of resolving the problem.  The

I doubt you'll find very many (any?) on cypherpunks who would contest this.
Again, you are confusing the difference between socialism and capitalism
with that between statism and anarchism.

> current welfare system is such that simply transferring the budget of all
> the programs would make every poor person middle class.  Confiscating the
> wealth of the rich would likely be used employ more people generating
> endless debates about who to give it to, than actual beneficiaries.  You

Actually there are plenty of beneficiaries.  Mostly corporate.

You do realize, I assume, that three times as much of your tax money goes
to corporate welfare than to actual welfare...
[Source: Michael Moore, ``Big Welfare Mamas'', in _Downsize_This_, NY 1996]

--
				Jim Wise
				System Administrator
				GSAPP, Columbia University
				jim@santafe.arch.columbia.edu
				http://www.arch.columbia.edu/~jim
				* Finger for PGP public key *