Bernard Hughes wrote:
>
> I say, that's a bit of an exaggeration, what? To caricature the
American view,
>each person magically acquires all that they have by entirely by their own
>efforts, and at some point begin trading in the great market with the
goods so
>acquired.
>
> Those with more of a sense of history might think much of what you posses
is a
>gift from the Past, (e.g. language, culture, technology), and feel moved to
>continue that trade into the future. I don't see any conflict in this with
the
>Extropian Principles as posted by Max.
>
> Since I believe in maximizing freedom of the individual, I wouldn't want to
>force trading between the past and the future on others. I'm hopeful than
>self-replicating systems and the like will enable total individualists to go
>their own way, and various forms of collective association association to
>flourish. For me, the negative in Socialism is the coercion of those who
don't
>desire to redistribute any of their wealth, not the desire to take part in a
>"gift culture" as well as a money market one.
There's no law against gifts under lf-capitalism. Indeed, arguably one of the biggest advantages of anarcho-capitalism (for those who are keen on this sort of thing) is that all you have to do to create anarcho-socialism in an anarcho-capitalist society is share all of your property with those of like minds. Compare this to gov't mediated socialism or socialism as outlined by Marx, who conceded that it might even take *another revolution* to get from socialism to utopia, and you can see that anarcho-capitalism is much more in line with "gift culture" communism than socialism could ever be.
Ultimately, those who want to reach anarcho-socialism but recognize that it is not immediately attainable should recognize that the best way to get there is through anarcho-capitalism, not through the nationalization of property.
-Dan
-GIVE ME IMMORTALITY OR GIVE ME DEATH-