Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!laura
From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Obituary
Message-ID: <4760@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Dec-84 20:07:26 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.4760
Posted: Mon Dec 10 20:07:26 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Dec-84 20:07:26 EST
References: <658@sjuvax.UUCP> <22400050@ea.UUCP>, <343@hercules.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 48

I missed mwm's commentary on his original posting. i can tell you the
difference between fascism and socialism, though. Socialism espouses
government *ownership* and *control* of resources (supposedly for the
sake of the collective). Fascism espouses private *ownership* and
government *control* of resources (for a whole host of reasons, but
generally involving either the good of the state or ``national security'').

Robert Nozick has an interesting scenario which he uses, and which can
be used to represent the difference. What Nozick wants to talk about is
the problems with ``patterned redistribution'', but it works for this as
well. It goes like this.

Assume, to begin with that all teh wealth that there is was divided among
all the people in whatever manner you would find most fair. (you don't
have to say what this manner is, or how this is to be done -- assume it
works by magic.)

Okay, on the day that this happens, Wilt Chamberlain makes up a bunch of
posters and sticks them on the doors of basketball stadiums everywhere.
They read ``if you think that your enjoyment of the game was significantly
a result of my presence, please deposit a dime into this can.'' There
are suitable cans. Months pass. Thousands of basketball fans watch basketball
and pay their dimes. At the end of the year, Wilt Chamberlain has made
hundreds of thousands of dollars this way.

Nozick's question is: Is this fair? After all, Wilt Chamberlain has lots
more money than he did on day one (when the wealth was distributed
according to your lights) and a lot of basketball fans are many dimes
lighter. If your conclusion is that this is unfair, then you have to
admit that you are against voluntary trade arrangements between consenting
and uncoerced individuals (or work very hard to show where the coercion
set in -- remember that nobody was forced to pay the dimes).

Both Socialists and Fascists would be likely to say that this is not
fair. A Socialist solution would be to make Basketball playing a state
run activity where people like Wilt Chamberlain could not make side-profits.
A Fascist solution would be, not to nationalise the basketball industry, but
to restrict how people can dispose of theier wealth (money) by making
such side-profits illegal. (In practice it would be easier to make it
illegal for Chamberlain to collect than for the people to spend, but
the opposite regulation would be equally fascist.)

The great question is, of course, ``is this distinction not highly
artificial''? What can it mean to ``own'' property if I do not also
have the rights of disposal on it?

Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura