Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihu1m.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!ihu1m!gadfly From: gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Obituary Message-ID: <156@ihu1m.UUCP> Date: Thu, 13-Dec-84 20:19:43 EST Article-I.D.: ihu1m.156 Posted: Thu Dec 13 20:19:43 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 14-Dec-84 07:24:22 EST References: <658@sjuvax.UUCP> <22400050@ea.UUCP>, <343@hercules.UUCP>, <4760@utzoo.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 43 -- [Laura Creighton posits that socialism implies state ownership and control of all property, then hypothesizes about a basketball player asking for donations and becoming very wealthy] >> 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 That may be the way fascism works, but not socialism. Not even the most utopian of socialist theorists ever suggested that a violin virtuoso would have to play on a communally-used, state-owned Strad. The ownership and control is *ONLY* over the proverbial "means of production", the physical plants and resources that generate wealth. By exercising this authority, the state can theoretically guarantee an equitable distribution of essentials and of opportunity. Artistic geniuses are free to use their talents as they see fit. Citizens under scientific socialism may buy and sell houses, cars, whatever, but not the means of production. Nor, of course, may they exercise the initiative to create or destroy such instruments, as to do so is to make a decision about the economy which is reserved for some committee (at some level or other) because it affects the general welfare. The line between generating wealth and merely transferring it (like Wilt's doing in the example) is, however, rather poorly defined. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 13 Dec 84 [23 Frimaire An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***