3142b19b   
   XPost: talk.politics.libertarian, alt.politics.socialism, alt.po   
   itics.libertarian   
   XPost: alt.philosophy.debate   
   From: rallen2@bellsouth.net   
      
   uri wrote:   
    > Greed is part of human nature. This is why   
    > communism failed because it tried to do away   
    > with greed.   
      
      
   Ron Allen wrote:   
    > If greed is only a part of human nature, then   
    > perhaps there is another part of human nature.   
    > Perhaps this other part of human nature is   
    > generosity.   
      
      
   Michael Price wrote:   
    > Ron, why is it that you think you're being   
    > profound when you say things everyone agrees on?   
      
      
   Ron Allen wrote:   
    > I am professing an opinion.  If you think that I   
    > think I'm being profound when I profess what I   
    > think, then perhaps you are the one who is   
    > projecting this feeling of profundity.   
      
      
   Michael Price wrote:   
    > No I am not projecting anything.  You make   
    > statements like this, that, read in context, you   
    > clearly think are extremely significant.   
      
      
   Ron Allen answers:   
   How do you know if I think that what I write is   
   extremely significant?  How can you possibly know   
   such a thing?  In answering what someone else has   
   written, sometimes I feel that it is necessary   
   just to make a very simple, uncomplicated,   
   elementary, plain and unpretentious observation.   
   Sometimes I just feel like it is necessary to   
   simplify the discussion by reminding a writer of   
   another aspect, or angle that he or she seems to   
   have overlooked.   
      
      
      
   Ron Allen wrote:   
    > You ask me questions, expecting that I give you   
    > a profound answer.   
      
      
      
   Michael Price wrote:   
    > I have never expected your answers to be   
    > profound, and I do not expect to expect that   
    > they will be.   
      
      
   Ron Allen answers:   
   Perhaps you are correct!  Perhaps you do not   
   expect to expect that my answers will be profound   
   answers.   
      
      
      
   Ron Allen wrote:   
    > I keep telling you that the answers to your   
    > questions are not always simple; sometimes the   
    > answers are conditional, sometimes the answers   
    > are contradictory, sometimes the answers are   
    > unknown, or uncertain.   
      
      
      
   Michael Price wrote:   
    > Never claimed that the answer would be simple,   
    > but I did expect that it would exist and be   
    > comprehensible.   
      
      
   Ron Allen answers:   
   An answer that is not expressed does not exist;   
   an answer that does not yet exist, because not   
   yet given, cannot yet be understood.   
      
      
      
   Ron Allen wrote:   
    > If greed were the only makeup of human nature,   
    > or if greed were the dominating part of human   
    > nature, then what would this imply about human   
    > freedom?   
      
      
   Michael Price wrote:   
    > That it would be used to benefit the possessor   
    > of that freedom, as it is.   
      
      
   Ron Allen wrote:   
    > Your freedom is the competitive freedom of   
    > conquest, of invasion, of expansion, of   
    > occupation, of massacre, of genocide, of   
    > extortion, and of subordination.   
      
      
      
   Michael Price wrote:   
    > No it's the freedom that actually allows you to   
    > do things you want, which sometimes means acting   
    > from "greedy" motives.   
      
      
   Ron Allen answers:   
   Greedy people want to conquer, invade, occupy,   
   massacre, extort, and enslave others!  Greedy   
   people use their freedom and their power to do   
   what they wish to do.   
      
      
      
   Ron Allen wrote:   
    > Capitalist freedoms and rights have always   
    > included the right to take, . . .   
      
      
      
   Michael Price wrote:   
    > Well actually no, State Capitalist "freedoms"   
    > and "rights" have but that's not the type of   
    > capitalism I advocate.   
      
      
   Ron Allen answers:   
   The capitalism you advocate has never existed,   
   just as the social-democracy I advocate has not   
   existed.  If you can justly criticize what I   
   advocate by pointing to really-existing socialism   
   and to really-existing democracy, then I can just   
   as rightly criticize what you advocate by pointing   
   to really-existing capitalism and to really-   
   existing statism.   
      
      
      
   Ron Allen wrote:   
    > . . . the freedom to take whatever you want.   
    > Capitalism has historically exhibited the kind   
    > of confrontational freedom of aggressive   
    > militancy, and of warmongering violence that   
    > most libertarian thinkers and anarchist   
    > theorists recognize, abhor, and do not   
    > disregard.   
      
      
      
   Michael Price wrote:   
    > Again, that's State Capitalism, i.e. severly   
    > restricted capitalism.   
      
      
   Ron Allen answers:   
   Has there ever been capitalism without statism?   
   I suppose that the correct answer to this question   
   can very easily be obfuscated simply by obscuring   
   the meanings of both capitalism and statism.   
      
      
      
   Ron Allen wrote:   
    > You advocate a non-violent version of   
    > capitalism; but, you ignore or deny the factual   
    > violence of really-existing capitalism.   
      
      
      
   Michael Price wrote:   
    > Actually liar I never have.  When have I ever   
    > denied the current system is violent?   
      
      
   Ron Allen answers:   
   You believe that wage-earners are free to enslave   
   themselves to masters, and thus you deny the real   
   violence even when there is a phoney appearance of   
   freedom, peace and rights.   
      
      
      
   Ron Allen wrote:   
    > I have always advocated a non-violent version of   
    > social-democracy; . . .   
      
      
      
   Michael Price wrote:   
    > No you haven't.  You've advocated a system where   
    > the majority are freely able to practice   
    > violence on the minority, limited only by their   
    > reluctance to practice it.  That's not a   
    > non-violent system.   
      
      
      
   Ron Allen answers:   
   I believe that human nature is not just greedy and   
   brutal in potential.  I believe that human nature   
   is both greedy and generous, both murderous and   
   mercifu, both unsociable and sociable.  I believe   
   that the natural and cultural environment can   
   serve to bring out one side of human nature, that   
   individuals will often adapt themselves to their   
   natural and social environment by adopting the   
   best forms of behavior, of action, and of   
   operating which forms best conform to the actual   
   and effective workings of the natural and social   
   environment.   
      
   I have always advocated a democratic arrangement   
   in which a majority is not free to, and has no   
   right to, initiate violence against a dissident   
   minority.  I have always advocated a minority   
   rights democracy, just as I have always advocated   
   a majority rule democracy.  You have always denied   
   that this can happen, but this is your opinion,   
   and you cannot impute your opinions of democracy   
   as if they we my opinions of democracy.  You   
   simply cannot rightly or justly confuse your very   
   opinionated and strongly oppositional vision of   
   democracy with my very optimistic and strongly   
   favourable vision of democracy.   
      
      
      
   Ron Allen wrote:   
    > . . . but, you equate socialism with statism,   
    > . . .   
      
      
      
   Michael Price wrote:   
    > Because it is, or at least your version is.   
      
      
   Ron Allen answers:   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)