From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:44:59 GMT

In article <ow1XwB2w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F) writes:
>
>> Isn't it interesting that you consider the Trudeau Liberals to be not left
>> of centre. How can you explain the HUGE increases in spending if they are
>> not left? How can you explain the FIRA and other intrusive regulatory
>> agencies? 

>
>It's a shame your political education has been so neglected that you 
>don't understand what constitutes a socialist. That you can label 
>Liberals as socialists boggles the mind.
>

Tax'n'spend Tax'n'spend Tax'n'Spend Tax'n'spend!!!!
liberals! socialists! 

we fiscal conservatives. supply siders, free marketers. libertarians etc.
hijacked the word liberal long ago, as an epithet, slurr, curse, insult
etc. understand?

Maybe you should do some kind of post-modernist, neo-keynesian politically
correct deconstruction of the word liberal. After all, words don't have any
meaning anyway, right? We'll just settle for the usual liberal, style over
substance arguments. 

"Liberals are *not* Socialists...Liberals are *socialists*" and if you 
can follow that argument, then you ARE a socialist.

From our side of the fence, the Liberals are socialists. Just because
you don't like their particular kind of socialism, and you want to 
pretty up your own brand of socialism (by drawing minor distinctions)
doesn't change the fact that your're all of the same ilk.

>A "socialist" (as distinct from a social-democrat, which is a different 
>kettle of fish altogether) is someone who believes in a "socialist 
>society" as a transitory stage between capitalism and small c communism.
>
>A socialist would characterize such a society by, in the economic field, 
>ownership of the means of production by society as a whole; a rapid 
>increase in the productive forces; and planned production.
>
>Furthermore, in what may surprise some of you, a socialist WOULD expect 
>people to be paid more if their work was more skilled or productive - 
>from each according to his ability; to each according to his WORK. 
>
>The word "socialist", as used by many posters on this net has come to be 
>nothing more than an epithet uttered to attempt to discredit a policy or 
>program - whether or not it has any relation to socialism. 
>
but of course it's an insult. If socialist style economic principles
were actually valid, then it would be a term of praise, but since
it is false, naturally it has a negative connotation. And it is why
you are trying not to call yourself a socialist, when in fact you
are one. Dressing socialism up in 'social democracy, liberal democracy, 
NDP' doesn't change the concept. Whether the different proponents of
the said philosophies know it or not, both  'socialism'
and 'liberal social democracy'  lead to failure.
Since you actually ARE a socialist, why do you hide from the label?
stand up for your beliefs, boy.


Fine, so you don't like to call yourself a socialist. Big deal.
you end up with the same failure as the ones who you call the 'real'
socialists. But just because you say 'I'm not a big bad socialist'
doesn't mean it's true, and no matter how good your motives are
(I'll admit the NDPers tend to have nice warm 'n' fuzzy, cuddly motives)
you still will end up in the same place.


>For example, while it is true that nationalization of a company may be 
>carried out by a socialist country, nationalization does not equal 
>socialism, and companies are often nationalized for quite unsocialist 
>reasons. Wacky Bennett the senior, for example, nationalized B.C. 
>Electric, and formed B.C. Hydro, but he was hardly a socialist or 
>promoting socialism.
>

Since socialism at its heart has no REAL respect for individual liberty,
and property; it's no surprise to find that socialism rears its ugly 
head in so many ways. Whether it's nationalist governments, peronists,
NDPers, socialists, communists, national socialists, Liberals, they  wind 
up failing if allowed to spread and infilitrate. They all have their champion 
causes, and scapegoats to blame for everything.

>To be a socialist, you must actually have the aim of re-making society a 
>as a socialist society. Mere supporters of Keynesian economics (or even 
>of intrusive government programs) don't qualify as socialists on that 
>account alone. 
>
they do. They may invent different reasons why they aren't socialists,
but their innately flawed reasoning and false premises on human nature
and liberty, and on economics leads them to fail in the same way.
Judge a politcal philosphy by its results, not by its rhetoric.

To sum, (now I'm getting assertive!): if it fails, it's socialism.
If it succeeds, it is capitalist, free market, and recognises an 
individual's right to liberty, property and self determination.

>While some of the Liberal programs you describe were nationalistic (and 
>intrusive as well), none of them were designed to put all the means of 
>production under public ownership. They certainly weren't designed to 
>overthrow capitalism.
>
Who cares about the intent. I look at the results. The liberals can
say they are for anything they want to be for. Since their actions
and results are inconsistent with liberty, and since they failed
they are socialists!

>As far as the NDP goes, it's a moderate social democratic party little 
>inclined to nationalize the entire economy in the name of the working 
>class. In fact, the NDP is a small l liberal reform party, composed 
>mainly of the middle class and yuppies with a social conscience.
>It's policies, while indeed favouring labour, working people in general, 
>and what might be termed the "underdogs" of our society at best try to 
>make capitalism more humane, rather than overthrow it entirely. 

OK, not the *entire* economy? So part of it *may* be nationalized
(for some 'good' reason, no doubt)? Since they'll contradict all
principles of liberty and property by nationalizing *some* industries,
the fact that they'll behave arbitrarily and inconsistently with those
principles shows them up to be socialists. All the rhetoric and good
intent doesn't change what they really are. So making capitalism more
humane (whatever the HELL that means) justifies slavery and confiscation
of property and denying a person his liberty? Like it or not, that's
what it means, if you analyse their premises and actions. Willingly
and arbitrarily going against one's principles in the name of achieving
some other goal; and when alternatives EXIST, is wrong. It is intellectual
deceit. 
>
>Perhaps it would be easier to visualize the total spectrum as a circle 
>rather than as a straight line. Starting at the centre, to the left you'd 
>find the NDP somewhat left, then the Greens and some of the eco-types, 
>then the Communists (if there are any left) then the Maoists, Trots, etc.
>Starting at the centre again, going to the right, you'd find, 
>considerably right, the Liberals, somewhat further right the
>Conservatives, Social Credit, Reform Party, any U.S. political party, and 
>then considerably further, the fascists, nazis, KKK and their ilk.
>
>Since the spectrum is considered as a circle, it would meet again 
>somewhere between the Maoists and the fascists, which is probably 
>reasonable as both are so extreme that their effect is similar even if
>their policies differ.

No disagreement from me. But you'll notice that all the loonies are
still on one side of that circle's diameter, and all the people who
knowingly believe, and follow through consistently, in
liberty, individualism, property etc. Just because the moderate 
liberal reform socialists pretend to believe in liberty, rights, etc.,
doesn't change where they will end up.
their actions and economic policies will lead them straight into
the hands of the communists, fascists etc.
>
>Let's start 1993 by using words like "socialist" with some perspective, 
>rather than merely as a lazy attempt to misrepresent policies you don't 
>much care for.
>
Maybe you will learn that all the nice moderate liberal reform socialist
policies you hold dear, are in fact contradicted by the actions of your
party . You champion the poor and weak, yet your policies actually
hurt them. You claim to believe in freedom, and human rights, but your
actions lead to enslaving others, to provide a means to your end.
This sad contradiction, self-delusion, and willing disregard for objective
reality is what makes socialism so wrong.

Enough sermonizing for tonight. If I have the energy later, I'll prove
in detail what is glaringly wrong with your values. (If I don;t have time
I'm sure one or two like minded individuals will take up the gauntlet)
>
>emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)
>


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________