Re: The Property Protocol
Tue, 5 Nov 1996 13:26:39 -0500

In a message dated 96-11-04 21:33:42 EST, (Suresh) wrote:

<< Some people are victims of geography, some people are born handicapped.
Does that mean they should be ground up by the wheels of the capitalist
machine? >>

Capitalism lets people free themselves from geography by creating means to
move and choose where you want to go. I don't know of any capitalistic
society that forbids travel or even travel out of the capitalistic society.
I do however know that socialistic governments place travel restrictions
even within their own borders. In this way a capitalistic society is closer
to libertarianism than a socialistic government.

People born handicapped were killed in the (very socialistic) USSR and Nazi a
Germany. I don't know of any capitalistic government that has ever done
that. I fact there are many non-government groups in capitalistic countries
that help the poor, handicapped, jobless, homeless. I see no reason to go
back to a socialistic government where those private groups are outlawed and
only the government rules. I don't see charities decreasing in capitalistic
countries and see no reason why they would decrease in a
libertarian-capitalist society.

I have seen people "ground" into submission by governments but they always
seem to be the socialist governments. Socialist governments want all people
to be equal, equally poor, starving, no rich at all. The only exception I've
seen is the Swiss were everyone is equally rich. They don't let anyone enter
their country and become a citizen that is poor.

Centralized government or centralized business is a great problem. When
either gets too much power the people can not negotiate a free and prosperous
life. Perhaps you are talking about "centralized (business monopoly)
capitalism". If so, we agree on that one point, at least.

<<Libertarianism would work if everybody could compete on fair
terms, >>

Decentralization helps because it lets people negotiate their choices with
many different other people. The central authority does not control. If you
don't like the people you are dealing with, go to the next one.

<<but they can't, so some are going to lose all the time. >>

"Some people will lose all the time" to me is a meaningless statement. Some
people we call "just plain losers". Some people are lazy, stupid or
uneducated. And, some people will not help themselves no matter what you do
for them.

Some people will not choose to help themselves no matter what you give them
to make things equal. Equality is not a stable state if people choose to
work harder than other people. Soon they gain the fruits of their labor and
everything is unequal again (poorer vs. richer). If one person learns more
than the next. . . you no longer have intellectual equality (educated vs.
uneducated). China tried this and the educated scientists cleaned toilets.
Did the uneducated make a new scientific discoveries? You should not force
equality anymore than you force people to do anything else. China had a
disaster when they tried. They chose to stop the "inequality" of intellect.
Ironically they got an _Atlas Shrugged_Ayn Rand disaster of their own

Equality is not the answer. It's too unstable. The minute everything is
equal, things change and the society spontaneously drifts out of that
unstable state.

Dynamically Optimistic,

November 5, 1996
9:17 am