From: Jim Wise <jw250@columbia.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 12:47:06 -0800 (PST)
To: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com>
Subject: RE: Re: wealth and property rights
In-Reply-To: <199611271638.KAA30991@mailhub.amaranth.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95L.961127153457.18734A-100000@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, William H. Geiger III wrote:

[...snip...]

> socialism uses FORCE to take what it wants while the capitilism you have a
> free & volintary exchange.

No.  Some systems are based on coercion, some are based on freedom.  This is a
completely different issue from whether a system is based on sharing or
hoarding...  As several people have been trying to explain to you, there are
really _two_ axes at work here.  (Something, for all my differences with its
authors, the `Libertarian Test' shows quite well)  One the one hand, some ssytems
are statist while others are anarchistic/librtarian.  On the other hand, some
systems are based on individual ownership, while others are based on communal
cooperation.  These axes are completely independent.

In a statist system, it doesn't matter whether you call yourself a `socialism' or
a `capitalism' -- the state can only preserve itself through theft and brutality.

On the other hand, in a free system, you would have the option of pursuing
capitalism, hoarding goods to trade with those of similar beliefs, while those who,
as myself, believe that more can be accomplished by pooling efforts and resources
would be free to work toward such a community.  Surely you do not find socialism
so frightening that you would deny us the right to seek it _for_ourselves_...

> why is this so hard to understand??

Because it is a gross oversimplification based on a misunderstanding of the basic
issues at stake...

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