1997-08-03 - Re: non-censorous spam control (was Re: Spam is Information?)

Header Data

From: Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com>
To: Kent Crispin <cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: f70104fe8ccb7bb8164ce75212bea38f3c1d0feac0dbab746ba5523f3b0f2449
Message ID: <v03102803b0094859ea52@[]>
Reply To: <199707311120.MAA00669@server.test.net>
UTC Datetime: 1997-08-03 01:40:11 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 09:40:11 +0800

Raw message

From: Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 09:40:11 +0800
To: Kent Crispin <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: non-censorous spam control (was Re: Spam is Information?)
In-Reply-To: <199707311120.MAA00669@server.test.net>
Message-ID: <v03102803b0094859ea52@[]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

>In a "free market" a fundamental feedback loop is that inequality of
>distribution of wealth increases -- this obviously follows from the
>fact that it is easier to make money if you have money.  With wealth
>goes control.  Thus, the ultimate end of completely unfettered free
>markets is fascism, where the wealthy run the government.  This is
>another manifestation of the fundamental conflict between democratic
>ideals and unfettered free markets.
>Naturally, rich, indolent technologists tend to favor schemes that
>will put them in control. :-)

I can't fuly agree. In Europe, both communism and fascism started from the
socialists (in fact, the fascist were called National Socialists) and their
premise that a free market cannot bring about the social good (including
equality) they sought, and both accept the "... idea of a political party
which embraces all activities of the individual from the cradle to the
grave, which claims to guide his views on everything, and which delights in
making all problems questions of party...," F.A. Hayek, The Road to
Surfdom. Both favor totalitarian means to this end.

In the case of the Communist, the solution is no private ownership.  In the
case of Fascism, government mandidated oligopoly, which is as far from a
free market as communism.