____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 08:32:15 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> To: Ray Dillinger <bear@sonic.net> Subject: Re: This is why a free society is evil. On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Ray Dillinger wrote:
Note: I really wish that people would "get" the distinction between socialism and fascism on this list.
Enlighten us then... Socialism, the management of all property and activity through a central authority, also called a 'command economy' because everything is done through the control and command of a central authority. Fascism, is the management of private property for the goals and policies of the state. Ownership of that 'private' property is contingent upon compliance and performance. The term itself comes from the Italian name for a Roman weapon which consisted of a group of reeds banded together with a axe head embedded. The point to the symbolism is that together we are stronger than apart (refering to the strength of individual reeds compared to when bundled). The distinction is simply at what point they step in and take away 'your' property.
I realize both look substantially the same from the libertarian/anarchist perspective in that they involve controlling people.
Actually, other than the issue private ownership they are nearly identical in philosophy and goals.
But they have different ideologies and reasons for controlling people,
No they don't. They ostensibly want to create a workable utopic society where everyone gets what they need. The question they are trying to answer (the question that ALL political, socialogical, and religious theory try to answer) is 'who gets to make the decision' and 'what is the range of acceptable decisions'.
and to use them interchangeably is to be WRONG slightly more than half the time.
Not if used in the context I used them in. That they both end up taking the decision making point away from the individual and move it toward a central authority. In that sense the results of the two, though their process may differ, is to create a system where a few benefit from the many.
If you want a word you can use for both types of government, plus dictatorships and feudal/aristocratic systems, try "totalitarian".
A dictatorship simply means that a single individual is in charge and has ultimate authority. The resultant system can have a variety of other paramters. It is not nearly as defining a term as 'socialism' or 'fascism'. The same goes for feudal/aristocratic (which by the way aren't related in the way this pairing would indicate). And neither do these need to be totalitarian. It is quite feasible for dictatorships (say Ceasar in Rome and the relation with Jews/Christians) to harbor a variety of philosophies and political systems.
I have long felt that we could comfortably shrink government if open markets were established to help settle such conflicts.
Open markets don't settle conflicts, they barter goods. This takes us right back to the question I was asking about a few weeks ago (Hayek was asking it of you as well). How does one reach the economic equilibrium which free market economies require? It is clear that they wil not spontaneously form, despite your claims here to the contrary.
If there are no laws, and both of you are committed to resolving the issue without violence, you probably both put money on the barrelhead to be paid to the other in the event you don't abide by an arbitrator's decision, and then go to an arbitrator and ask his opinion.
If a bullfrog had wings it wouldn't bust its butt when it jumped.
That's if you're civic minded, I suppose.
You suppose? So even you're not sure if it will work or not? Is that correct?
The fact is though, a lot of people wouldn't do that if they thought the arbitrator was likely to side with the other guy.
Why would an anarchist accept 3rd party arbitration? How is this any different than 'government'? If the arbitration doesn't conform to some sort of principle and standards then it's arbitrary and nobody with half a click of a clue will agree to arbitration with no principles or standards available. Anarchy was meant to prevent just this sort of situation. And what happens if one or more of the parties, excluding the arbiter, decide that neither want to comply? How does the arbiter enforce it?
Things become a lot easier if your property deed is a truly *complete* description of the property;
'property deed'? There is no government or law, there is no deed. You weren't paying attention the other day during the Goldback and fractal discussions, you can't create complete descriptions.
in that case you know who owns the volume over the fence (or whether it's held in common) and your neighbor started charging you rent for the encroachment of your tree into his volume years ago.
And why would I do that? Where did this standard come from in an anarchy? Where is the 'law' that decides that initial 'volumetric' estimate? Why should either party comply with such a description?
If you don't want to pay the rent, you have a few choices; you can trim your tree to keep it in your property, you can buy from him the volume over the fence where the tree's limbs are spreading, or you can offer tenancy in common of the volume in question, giving him the right to encroach into the volume near your house too.
Or I can tell the fat slob to trim his own roof and leave me alone. Then when he comes over later I shoot him and get both his house and mine now.
Note, this assumes sufficient government that property rights and
There is no government, it's an anarchy remember. Blipverts strike again. [remainder deleted out of mercy] ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------