-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Fabulich <daniel.fabulich@yale.edu>
To: extropians@extropy.com <extropians@extropy.com>
Date: 15 December 1998 16:05
Subject: Re: Property
>Samael wrote:
>
>>So if you pick up my book, it belongs to you? It's impossible to lend
>>things to people? Really? IOs that actually what you are trying to say?
>>Because I think that _that_) attitude will probably put off most people on
>>this group.
>
>OK, dude. It's time to clear up some loose rhetoric here.
Damn, I thought I was doing quite well there.
>
>Either you're advocating a return to the communist state of nature or
>you're not. There are several problems with the communist state of nature:
> first, it never existed. Second, it only works (if at all) in small
>groups, and even there with suboptimal efficiency. Finally, and most
>importantly, if we tried to make it exist, you'd run into the problem about
>restrictions on use I mentioned in an earlier post. ("Suppose Alice and
>Bob are in a two person communist society...")
>
>If you're NOT proposing anarcho-communism, then I expect that you also
>intend to create restrictions on the use of goods. Unless these
>restrictions are by unanimous consent, this is the definition of property.
>Government by unanimous consent is simply the communist state of nature
>(with all of its problems). Government by any other means is
>property-related. State owned property, in your case. And if property is
>theft...
>
>So, either you advocate state property rights, in which case you contradict
>your statement that property is theft, or you don't, in which case you
>contradict your statement that you aren't endorsing communism.
>
>You can't have it both ways.
Me, personally? I advocate property "rights" with minimal taxation necessary for a basic state . I do not do so out of some abstract 'ideal', I do so because I believe that it will lead to a world which I would like to live in. I believe this due to my studies in economics, psychology, sociology and general observation of human nature. I believe the tax burden will get less and less as we get richer and richer (and peoples capacity for charity goes up - as well as peoples ability to look after themselves) until we approach (or possibly asymptotically approach) the libertarian ideal state where each person can look after themselves and there is no 'need' to help other people with the basic means of survival. I'd liek to believe in pure capitalism, believe me , I would, but I see too many flaws in it (although it is igetting better as we go along and certain things could do with being more purely capitalistic at the momnent).
Samael