Re: Private Property and Capitalism
Sat, 12 Oct 1996 15:32:39 -0400

In a message dated 96-10-11 19:12:19 EDT, (Twirlip
of Greymist) wrote:

<< Problem is, even if you posit starting with an altruistic species, if
one individual mutates to be selfish, it has a lovely reproductive
advantage. Unless there are control or exclusion mechanisms among the
altruists. >>

And, I think humans are not altruistic to begin with. Governments and
religions have tried to force altruism unsuccessfully with laws, guns, jail,
damnation, and shame. It just doesn't work with humans. We all want what we
want. We are all "self-wanting" call it "selfish". What's wrong with that?
The people who say they want to help their fellow man (altruists) also want
something. They want other people to believe as they do and many times to
control other people's generosity. So they are also not true altruists
either they are "selfish" too.

BUT, enlightened selfishness is better than blatant selfishness:

The more satisfying cooperations are not where I give and not get back
(lose-win,altruism). The most satisfying are where I WIN and the other
people WIN too (win-win). That is, I want to win but not at the expense of
my customer: Not lose-lose, not win-lose (not a zero-sum game) and not
lose-win (submission/tyrant, altruism/parasite).

One of the most popular sales and marketing philosophies today is the WIN-WIN
of Stephen Covey in his book _The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People_.

This is not an exploitive philosophy. It gets repeat business and is highly
profitable for all people. It is unlike the old communist propaganda where
capitalists were supposedly evil and exploiting the masses (win-lose). BTW
the communists wanted a lose-win (submission/parasite) or win-lose
(master/slave). Ether way they had control not you. Win-win give you both
control to get the best negotiated deal for both.

Anarcho-syndicalism looks to me like "Anarcho-communism, communism without
the state" or because communism is though of a state, more accurately:
spontaneous socialism/ collectivist anarchy. AKA Libertarian-socialism.

Contrast this to: Libertarian capitalism "Anarcho-capitalism" looks to me
like capitalism without the state. The only difference is
socialism/communism forcefully prohibits people acquiring private property.
With socialism/communism a person's body is "owned" but it is "owned" by the
state. Communism assumes private property is theft from the state.

Collectivist anarchy vs. Individualist anarchy:

There are two groups of Libertarians (at least to me) the Spontaneous
Socialists (Collectivist anarchy) and the Laissez-Faire Capitalists
(individualist anarchy).

The first (socialist) group is where (I think) Rudolf Rocker, Noam Chomsky
and Surech Naidu are. I found a list of libertarian-socialists on the web.
I do not agree with this group. I think they have the same short comings as
destroyed the USSR. Namely private property is forbidden. All transactions
are lose/win. I can see where a very small idealistic group might survive if
they expelled the "mutant" win-win and win-lose meme private property people.
This group sees capitalism as ONLY LOSE-WIN or WIN-LOSE. They can not or do
not want to see the WIN/WIN side of capitalism because it conflicts with
their philosophy and could weaken their philosophy.

I am of the second Libertarian group: Laissez-Faire Capitalists
(individualist anarchy). Therefore I believe people like to work hard and
get paid for it. Win-win. . . Something that could not happen without
private property. Unfortunately some businesses are win-lose. . . and then
capitalism gets a bad name. BUT, the saving grace of libertarian-capitalism
is that you are free NOT to choose win-lose companies to do business with.
That is why I feel the second group of libertarians are on safer ground.

Libertarian-capitalism/ anarcho-capitalism encourages people to work and pay
(WIN-WIN) when they acquire private property.

Libertarian-capitalism assumes people own their own bodies, unlike
libertarian-socialism where the anarcho-society "owns" the individual's body.
Either believes in state control or state regulation of a person's body.

BTW, Fascism is not capitalism. Fascism gives the facade of private
ownership but then regulates everything about the so called "private"
property (even controls your body) so you _really_don't_ own it.

Dynamically Optimistic,

October 12, 1996
11:06 am

Dynamically Optimistic,

October 12, 1996
11:48 am