- Capitalism and Alternatives -


Posted by: Gee ( si ) on April 15, 1999 at 12:14:45:

In Reply to: I would draw a distinction between property and possession though. posted by LARK on April 14, 1999 at 16:52:47:

: I would draw a distinction between property and possession though. Say in land we cant all have land so the right of property in land for some deprives the rest of us of the liberty of the land owner.

Land has always been the most difficult are for all political persuasions to deal with. Its true that lands needs working to create usefulness. Ive never seen a god way of dealing with the issue either. Having under state control has been done, and we know what happens, having it under some kind of Red Daathy style style local democratic control sounds vaigly feasible, but it seems to be just small scale statism. You may be interested in a small offshoot of libertarians called geolibertarians.

: I think that is a generalisation but as side from that it doesnt matter how efficent the company is, I dont know that they are that efficient ever notice how a new Pentium Processor comes out every Christmas? It's not continual advance it's hanging back on advance until it'll turn a price, I dont care.

You dont have to buy one, I know a fellow who still gets great pleasure from PCs and has a pentium 75, he just ignores new software. If people rush out to buy the new stuff fine, its a choice.

: I cant get good left books from either the lefty shops, run on pure voluntary zeal, or the chainstores, run on your wonderous "rational self interest" (cant we just call it greed?).

We can call it greed if you want, provided it means the same thing. That is, each person is an individual (even if that person seems similar to others), each person has specific values (family, friends, hobbies etc etc) which that person will wish to pursue.

: What I do care about is authoritarian management and the like, I even hate good, pleasant management I'll never raise a glass with anyone who'll make me do their will

A manager, good or bad, cant close the door on you once youve started work. ive know both types and whilst a good manager is better for working, neither of them can lock the door on you and force you to do what you dont want to.

: And I dont think Russia was socialist. I dont think Hitler, Stalin, Mao where socialists. As you accuse me of historical revisionism and making excuses I now do the same to you.

I dont recall accusing *you* of historical revisionism, nor is stating that some 'businesspeople' are second raters who rely on brute inititiations of force of state, revisionism.

: hold on your painting this corporate dude as a hero, he could have exposed these dudes he desearves a dishing of justice too but who's going to do it? The workers and unions? The consumers? you know that both these groups are non-existant organisaitonally.

If people didnt want to use the resultant improved railroad system in NY then thats pretty powerful. And even back then no business owner could get away with locking workers in.

: That's just a bit utopian, as a threat to their interests existing competitors will "deal with you" no matter how much energy etc. you apply, or money and influence you apply for that matter.

Weve discussed before how a company cannot indefinately 'deal' with competitors without ending up bankrupt.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup