From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: An Observation
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 08:29:32 GMT

In article <1jnu48INNmau@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu writes:
}     Debating between Neo-Stalinist Communism and a mythological version of
}Capitalism based on a rosy version of America in the late 1800's does not do
}the discussion justice.

As a description of this debate, it certainly doesn't.  Let's take the
fraud counts in chronological order, shall we?

1) The pro-capitalists have taken as their foil something called "neo-Stalin-
ist Communism."  Nonsense.  First of all, the sort of fascism practiced by
Stalin originated with Lenin, and was then adopted and adapted by Mussolini,
whose policies were adopted and adapted by Hitler, whose policies were adopted
and adapted by Mao, etc.  Lenin, it turns out, took much of his inspiration
from the "War Socialism" of WWI Germany.

Secondly, we've critiqued regulations of capitalism under democratic regimes,
not totalitarian fascist ones.  That should suffice for this point.

2) We've defended a mythical capitalism in the late 1800s of the USA.  Nonsense.
For example, I attended a talk last night on the roots of American statism
in the Civil War, in which Lincoln was characterized as the USA's Napoleon,
a dictatorial nationalist, and the South's own primitive form of war socialism
was brought to our attention.  The triumph of the Whig nationalist neo-
mercantilist agenda of statist interventions on behalf of Big Business was
also duly noted, but not exagerrated or extended to truly free market
entrepreneurs like Henry Hill of the Great Northern Railroad.

Frankly, I strongly suspect that we libertarians can tell you a lot more about
the imperfections of the US free market between the Civil War and WWI than
you can.  This doesn't mean it can't teach us informative lessons about
markets as free as it was, or that it wasn't one of the freest markets in
the 6o centuries of world history.

Other systems which existed around the world BEFORE
}Europeans started their souljourn around the world actually kept their peoples
}well off and in a population balance.  I've yet to see the European system
}variants (and capitalism in particular) do this, indeed they seem to have a
}line about poor people deserving their fate running through them.

Specificity, please.

}     America was founded with the IDEA that its citizens should be educated and
}that the education should be public wherever necessary.

That they should be educated, yes.  That this education should be paid for
with taxes, no, these United States weren't founded upon that idea.

The township concept
}of political division in most of the US

That's the Northern States only.

}>>Consider
}>>the failure of countries without welfare to maintain the peace.
}>
}>Hong Kong, to my knowledge, hasn't invaded anyone.
}
}     Whom does Hong Kong have to attack?  China?  Hmmm...can you smell the
}slaughter of Hong Kong from such an attack?

The USA had little war between the Civil War and WWI, yet little domestic
aid programs.

}>If you lose your job in Singapore, you are shit out of luck, but somehow
}>they don't have riots, do they.
}
}     Singapore has a highly restrictive society, one in which political
}opression (sorry if the Objectivists have trouble understanding this term,
}since according to Rand political repression cannot happen--only economic
}opression)

Flat nonsense.  Political oppression includes the violation of civil rights
to property.  Yes, Singapore is an oppressive dictatorship in many ways.

}     And as for the subject of Social Darwinism:  Imbedded (sp?) in Ayn's
}writings is the idea of Social Darwinism--that one gets what one deserves, and
}any system which gets in the way of this is wrong.  I could rail on the
}evilness of this concept, but for now I will merely comment that S.D. is
}mistaken in its assumption of intent in natural systems.  Wealth, fame, and
}happiness do not come to those who deserve it, but to those who can handle it
}(or the dehumiliation necessary to become wealthy/famous).

"Social Darwinism" is a strawman.

}Final personal opinion note:  Given the 5.5+ billions of people on planet
}earth, I will admit that the choices are capitalism and communism/socialism;
}and that capitalism is the only choice.  However, I believe that any population
}over 1/2 billion is wrong for Planet earth, and therefore Capitalism is wrong
}by the need of a large population for Capitalism's existance.  Therefore,
}capitalism is by necessity wrong.

I've never heard a good argument for restricting population that low, nor
does it follow from your claim that we should.  We could also expand past
the earth, which you might realize if it weren't for your apparent geocen-
trism.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism