Re: The Property Protocol

Suresh Naidu (
Tue, 5 Nov 1996 10:46:39 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Ian Goddard wrote:

> At 01:30 AM 11/5/96 -0500, Suresh Naidu wrote:
> > People with money do not neccessarily get it from the majority of people.
> IAN: Political candidates do not necessarily get votes from
> the majority. But, that's not a case against democracy.
> > Do you think the majority of people want to pay for sonic toothbrushes?
> > Only the rich do.
> IAN: That's what they once said about regular toothbrushes. Because
> those people didn't stop laissez-faire capitalism then, now even the
> "poor" can afford toothbrushes. If we don't stop capitalism now,
> the same thing will happen again.

There are still people out there who can't afford toothbrushes, but
that's a different story. The average standard of living has improved,
but the average poor person lives in much the same way they did 200 years
ago, with a few more perks. While the rich standard of living has
increase, say , by a hundred fold, the poor standard of living has
increased maybe three fold.

> > You have more ballots than most people. If you become rich enough, it
> > doesn't matter what other people think, you can impose your will on them.
> IAN: If people share your fear, nobody will get that many votes.
> They can only "impose their will" once they start to buy up all the
> land. Buying off and then growing the govt is the logical course
> to take, and the most effective pretext for growth is socialism.
> So the logical course is anti-socailism, or laissez faire.

Look at a company like Shell. They give us nice products like oil, right?
They get it at the expense of people who can't afford to buy any of it.
THe Ogoni in Nigeria. Yet, because they have our economic support, they
don't need anybody else's.

> IAN: Your saying that capitalism will lead to either [1] socialism
> or [2] socialism so we would be better off with socialism.
> The fact is that both varieties of socialism you fear -- both
> rule by a central cabal -- are achieved only by means antithetical
> to capitalism, so there is a clear path: laissez faire.

How will laissez faire prevent those things from happening? Either the
workers and the poor, of which there will be far more, will revolt as
Marx predicted. Or the powerful will have such control that the
peop[le won't be able to revolt. Laissez faire will not move wealth
around. It will centralize it into the hands of the most ruthless or capable.

Socialism does not imply totalitarianism. It's completely different.
Batista, Duvalier, Suharto, and Duarte all ran with capitalism, and yet
they were, (still are in the case of Suharto), completely totalitarian.
This is because the government was run for and by the private interests.
Which is what I think happens with laissez faire.

I live in Canada, which is a fairly good liberal socialism. I agree with
Banjo that capitalism needs a bit of government in order to keep it from
running amuck.

> > Why is an utopia illogical?
> IAN: If its goal -- equalization of wealth -- violate it's
> tenants -- liberty -- as in the case of "anarcho-socialism,"
> then it's illogical.

But it doesn't. The freedom to do what you choose is still there, but of
course there are limits, because then you impinge on the freedom of
others. There is more freedom than capitalism because noone can tell you
what to do (with you having to take it, with no reasonable alternatives).
There is also mroe equality. Of course it's not a perfect system. But I'd
like a system that is flexible enough to meet the problems it runs into
without too much bureaucratic procrastination.

> > I'm advocating voluntary socialism, pretty much. No I can't
> > impose this by force, because that's just not right.
> IAN: So you disagree with Chomsky when we says we need the federal govt?

Well, no. Because the business interests have so much power, i think we
need to get a strong populist government. The emphasis on the word
populist. It's a neccessary evil to counteract another evil.